Rare Giant Exoplanet Discovered at Milky Way’s Edge Using Einstein’s Space-Time Lens

Astronomers have identified a rare and distant planet, leveraging a remarkable space-time effect first proposed by Albert Einstein. This discovery marks only the third time a planet has been found so far from the dense center of our galaxy, using a highly uncommon detection technique known as microlensing.

Named AT2021uey b, the newly found world is a gas giant similar in size to Jupiter and is located approximately 3,200 light-years away from Earth. What makes this exoplanet truly unique is its distant orbit around a small, cool M dwarf star, taking nearly 4,170 days to complete a single revolution. Such a position, lying on the fringes of the Milky Way, makes this one of the most remote planetary discoveries to date.

The most intriguing aspect of this finding lies in how the planet was detected. Rather than the usual methods involving light dimming or star wobble, astronomers employed the phenomenon of microlensing — a space-time warping event that temporarily magnifies the light from a star when another massive object passes in front of it. In this case, the gravity of the exoplanet created a brief, sharp increase in the brightness of its host star, allowing scientists to infer the planet’s presence.

Microlensing is based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which posits that massive objects distort the very fabric of space and time around them. Instead of viewing gravity as an invisible force, Einstein described it as a natural consequence of the curvature in space-time caused by mass and energy. This curvature affects the path of everything — including light. Thus, when a planet or other massive body aligns precisely with a background star, the light from that star bends and magnifies as it passes through the curved space-time, acting like a lens.

“What fascinates me about this method is that it can detect those invisible bodies,” said Marius Maskoliūnas, co-author of the study and an astronomer at Vilnius University in Lithuania. “Imagine a bird flying past you. You don’t see the bird itself and don’t know what color it is — only its shadow. But from it, you can, with some level of probability, determine whether it was a sparrow or a swan and at what distance from us. It’s an incredibly intriguing process.”

The research findings were published on May 7 in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics. The planet’s brief shadow, caused by the microlensing event, was first noticed in 2021 through data collected by the European Space Agency’s Gaia telescope. That temporary increase in brightness was a telltale signature of microlensing, prompting astronomers to delve deeper.

The team followed up with observations from the Molėtai Astronomical Observatory in Lithuania. By analyzing these detailed readings, they calculated that the object causing the brightness spike was a planet about 1.3 times the mass of Jupiter. The gas giant orbits a relatively cool host star, which emits heat at roughly half the temperature of our sun. The planet itself lies at a distance four times greater than that between Earth and the sun, indicating a long, cold orbit in a remote part of the galaxy.

“This kind of work requires a lot of expertise, patience, and, frankly, a bit of luck,” Maskoliūnas noted. “You have to wait for a long time for the source star and the lensing object to align and then check an enormous amount of data. Ninety percent of observed stars pulsate for various other reasons, and only a minority of cases show the microlensing effect.”

Microlensing is significantly less common than other exoplanet detection methods. Since the first exoplanet was confirmed in 1992, astronomers have discovered nearly 6,000 alien worlds beyond our solar system. The most widely used techniques — transit photometry and radial velocity — identify planets by detecting either a star’s dimming as a planet crosses in front of it or the wobble in a star’s movement caused by a planet’s gravitational pull. These methods have proven fruitful, especially for planets closer to their stars. However, they fall short when it comes to identifying distant planets in obscure regions of the galaxy.

Microlensing, in contrast, excels at spotting planets in the galaxy’s outer zones. These regions, often sparse in the heavier elements required for planet formation, present a challenge to traditional detection methods. The fact that AT2021uey b was found in such a location suggests that gas giants can indeed form and persist even in less chemically rich parts of the Milky Way.

According to the researchers, this unexpected find challenges existing ideas about where and how planets form. “When the first planet around a sun-like star was discovered, there was a great surprise that this Jupiter-type planet was so close to its star,” said Edita Stonkutė, the lead researcher on the microlensing project at Vilnius University. “As data accumulated, we learned that many types of planetary systems are completely unlike ours — the solar system. We’ve had to rethink planetary formation models more than once.”

Stonkutė’s remarks reflect a broader shift in the astronomical community. Initially, scientists believed our solar system’s architecture — rocky planets close to the sun, gas giants farther away — was the universal standard. But as discoveries of exoplanets have piled up, researchers now recognize that planetary systems exhibit an astonishing variety. From hot Jupiters hugging their stars tightly to planets orbiting dead stars, the diversity has forced a re-evaluation of how planets come into being and evolve.

The detection of AT2021uey b through microlensing is yet another reminder of the unpredictable and vast nature of our universe. Each new technique opens a fresh window into the cosmos, expanding our understanding of planetary systems beyond our own. This particular discovery not only underscores the potential of microlensing in revealing hidden corners of the galaxy but also hints at a broader cosmic truth — that planets, including massive gas giants, may be far more widespread than previously imagined, even in the galactic outskirts.

In the end, it’s the convergence of Einstein’s century-old theory, state-of-the-art space telescopes, and a bit of serendipity that made this discovery possible. As Maskoliūnas put it, “It’s an incredibly intriguing process.”

B-2 Bombers Moved to Guam as Trump Considers U.S. Involvement in Israel-Iran Conflict

U.S. Department of Defense officials have begun relocating B-2 bombers across the Pacific Ocean, a move that comes as President Donald Trump deliberates potential American intervention in the intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran. These developments were reported by Reuters, which noted that powerful “bunker buster bombs,” each weighing around 30,000 pounds, are being transported to the U.S. territory of Guam. This location could serve as a launch point if Trump decides to take military action against Iran.

The Department of Defense redirected inquiries from The Hill to the White House, which has yet to issue a formal response or provide further clarification regarding the deployment and the president’s current stance.

Recent flight data supports the growing speculation surrounding U.S. military movements. Several aircraft were seen departing from Travis Air Force Base, located in California. These flights included B-2 stealth bombers, departing shortly after Trump publicly announced a two-week deadline to determine whether the United States will intervene militarily in Iran. It’s worth noting that the U.S. Air Force possesses the capability to deactivate transponders on these aircraft, allowing their movements to remain untracked and covert when necessary.

Until recently, these strategic bombers were stationed in Missouri. Military analysts suggest that they may now be positioned for potential strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. One particular target of interest appears to be the Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, a hardened underground site that poses a significant challenge for conventional weaponry but could be vulnerable to the immense power of the bunker busters.

The Fordo site is Iran’s second major nuclear facility after the Natanz complex. Natanz was recently attacked by Israeli forces in a move that visibly escalated the ongoing hostilities between the two countries. According to reports, the strike caused considerable damage to the facility, marking another step in Israel’s broader objective of dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons development program.

Just one day after the Natanz attack, Israel reported further military action. The Israeli government confirmed that it had launched a strike on a different Iranian nuclear site located in Isfahan. In addition to damaging critical infrastructure, Israeli forces also claimed to have eliminated two high-ranking Iranian commanders during the assault. This act further inflamed the tensions between the two nations.

Later on the same day, the Israeli Air Force targeted additional military infrastructure in southwestern Iran. These operations were detailed in a formal statement issued by the Israeli military. The statement emphasized the strategic nature of the attacks and pointed to Israel’s intention to continue targeting locations that may be connected to Iran’s weapons programs.

The strikes followed an aggressive move by Iran just hours earlier. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Iran had launched 40 drones during the night between Friday and Saturday. Israeli defense systems intercepted the drones before they could reach their targets, neutralizing the threat and avoiding significant damage.

An Israeli military official, speaking to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, explained the impact of Israel’s countermeasures: “We’ve been able to take out a large amount of their launchers, creating a bottleneck — we’re making it harder for them to fire toward Israel.” However, the official also offered a sobering assessment of Iran’s capabilities, adding, “Having said all that, I want to say the Iranian regime obviously still has capabilities.”

In addition to the strikes and drone interceptions, Israeli forces recently claimed to have killed several top Iranian commanders and nine engineers who were allegedly involved in Iran’s nuclear program. The targeting of these individuals is viewed as a direct effort to cripple Iran’s ability to make progress on its nuclear ambitions.

As the conflict intensifies, President Trump has taken a firm position. He declared that hostilities will persist until Iran agrees to a full surrender. “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” was the phrase he used to describe the only acceptable outcome from the United States’ perspective. His strong rhetoric underscores the gravity of the situation and hints at the scale of the response that may follow if Iran does not comply.

Despite the growing pressure, Iran’s leadership has vowed to continue its resistance. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei addressed the Iranian people through a message posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. In it, he urged the nation to stand strong in the face of adversity.

“I would like to tell our dear nation that if the enemy senses that you fear them, they won’t let go of you. Continue the very behavior that you have had up to this day; continue this behavior with strength,” Khamenei wrote.

His statement suggests that Iran is unlikely to capitulate, even in the face of growing international pressure and escalating military actions. The message was aimed at rallying national support and reinforcing the narrative of resilience against foreign intervention.

The current military posturing, including the movement of U.S. bombers and intensified Israeli strikes, points to a rapidly evolving situation in the Middle East. Trump’s decision in the coming weeks may have significant consequences not only for U.S.-Iran relations but also for the broader geopolitical stability of the region.

Analysts warn that any direct involvement by the United States could mark a turning point in the conflict, transforming it from a bilateral clash between Israel and Iran into a wider confrontation with global implications. The presence of U.S. bombers on Guam and the strategic nature of their potential deployment only adds weight to this possibility.

While Israel appears determined to neutralize what it sees as a growing nuclear threat, and Iran remains defiant in its response, the role of the United States remains the most critical variable. The next two weeks could be pivotal in determining whether diplomacy has any chance to prevail or if the world must brace for a larger military confrontation.

With President Trump’s deadline approaching, the eyes of the world are on Washington. The movement of B-2 bombers and the transportation of powerful bunker buster bombs to Guam are more than just logistical maneuvers; they are a clear signal that the United States is preparing for all possibilities — including war.

US-Middle East Flight Suspensions Continue Amid Escalating Israel-Iran Conflict

Several U.S. airlines have extended or imposed new suspensions on flights to and from the Middle East as the violent conflict between Israel and Iran continues to intensify.

United Airlines has announced a halt to its daily service between Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey and Dubai. The airline cited ongoing regional conflict as the reason for this move, though no timeline was offered for when these flights might resume. Currently, United operates its only flights to Dubai through Newark, underscoring the disruption’s significance.

American Airlines also revealed a temporary suspension of its route from Philadelphia International Airport to Doha, Qatar. This suspension will remain in effect through June 22, according to a spokesperson from American Airlines who spoke with CBS News. The last flight to Doha before the suspension took off from Philadelphia early Thursday morning.

Delta Air Lines has similarly suspended its services, halting flights between New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and Tel Aviv, Israel. The airline said the pause will extend until at least August 31. Delta’s suspension follows escalating safety concerns related to the intensifying conflict in the region.

Air travel disruptions are not limited to U.S. carriers. International airlines have also taken action in response to the hostilities. Emirates, Etihad Airways, and Lufthansa are among the major carriers that have canceled some of their regional routes. According to aviation news website AviationA2Z, the Middle East’s volatile security landscape has forced many airlines to re-evaluate flight paths and schedules.

In Israel, Ben Gurion International Airport, the country’s main aviation hub, remains closed. On the other hand, U.S.-based carriers do not operate flights to Iran’s primary airport, Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. Still, flight activity across the broader region has seen a ripple effect.

These developments come in the wake of Israel launching a military campaign known as “Operation Rising Lion” against Iran. Israel has reportedly been targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities since late last week. The Israeli government claims that intelligence assessments suggest Iran is approaching the development of nuclear weapons. In response, Iran has unleashed a series of retaliatory missile strikes against Israeli targets.

The hostilities have led to the closure of airspace over multiple countries in the region. As of now, airspace remains restricted above Israel, Jordan, Iran, and Iraq. The Israeli Ministry of Transportation confirmed that these closures will continue until further notice, underscoring the widespread nature of the disruption and the heightened level of caution.

On the political front,  President Donald Trump has taken a forceful stance, calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” According to senior intelligence and Defense Department sources who spoke with CBS News, Trump is currently deliberating whether the United States should carry out direct strikes on Iran and formally enter Israel’s ongoing military offensive.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt added further weight to this possibility, stating on Thursday that President Trump is expected to reach a decision within the next two weeks regarding potential U.S. military action. “The president will make a decision on whether to order a strike within the next two weeks,” Leavitt said.

Amid the intensifying military actions and regional instability, the U.S. government is also taking measures to protect its citizens in Israel. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem notified Americans on Thursday that plans are underway to facilitate the departure of private U.S. citizens from the country. Some individuals have already been evacuated using cruise ships.

Meanwhile, the State Department has escalated its travel warnings for the region. Israel is now under a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory, citing the risk of “armed conflict, terrorism and civil unrest.” The advisory strongly discourages Americans from entering the country until further notice. Iran has also long been under the same highest-level travel warning. The State Department emphasized that U.S. citizens should not travel to Iran due to threats including “terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, arbitrary arrest of U.S. citizens and wrongful detention.”

This growing list of advisories highlights the increasingly hazardous nature of the region for travelers. Coupled with the broadening airline suspensions and airport closures, the current climate has made air travel in and out of the Middle East highly uncertain.

The conflict has clearly moved beyond bilateral tensions and now threatens to pull in broader international involvement. With the possibility of direct U.S. military engagement on the table and global airlines halting their services, the geopolitical stakes have risen dramatically.

Airline industry insiders note that such suspensions can have lasting operational and financial implications. While safety is the priority, re-routing flights, canceling schedules, and managing stranded passengers place considerable strain on carriers. Additionally, travelers with plans involving Middle Eastern destinations are being advised to stay updated through airline alerts and government travel notices.

In the background of these unfolding events, diplomatic efforts appear to be lagging. While public and private channels of communication may still be active between international actors, the public posture from key players—especially Israel and the United States—suggests that escalation, rather than de-escalation, is the more likely short-term outcome.

The air travel industry, often an early indicator of geopolitical risk, continues to adjust to the developing situation. With more than a dozen international airlines modifying their schedules or suspending flights altogether, the consequences of the Israel-Iran conflict are already being felt far beyond the battlefield.

While it remains unclear how long these disruptions will last, what is certain is the unpredictable and rapidly changing nature of the conflict. Travelers, airlines, and governments alike are watching closely, aware that conditions could evolve significantly in a matter of days—or even hours. The airspace closures, the military operations, and the possible entry of additional nations into the fray all contribute to a tense and precarious environment that shows no sign of stabilizing soon.

In the coming days, the world will be watching to see not only how the conflict on the ground unfolds, but also whether the skies above the Middle East can reopen safely and allow for the resumption of civilian air travel. Until then, passengers and airlines must prepare for ongoing disruption and uncertainty.

The Twenty First Vision (22 June, 2025)

Set in Kumbum Monastery, Qinghai, The People’s Republic of China

Prayer 3: As a Gelug Tibetan Buddhist, Praying from Kumbum Monastery,

Xining, Qinghai, the People’s Republic of China

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

I want to be free from suffering. I want to be liberated from hate.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

I see someone I hate and I feel angry, and this is sometimes my son or sometimes my sister or sometimes my own mother or sometimes a stranger. These are people I hate, but they are also people I love. I pray in order to forgive them.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

Relationships change, and even if it is hard to speak to the people I love, that need not be my future. I am making an effort to change, and they are making an effort to change, and someday that effort will lead us to the point where we can agree on how we see the world.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

My land is beautiful, my country is beautiful, it is full of wide steppes even from this step of the monastery I look out and I see the white stupas in rows and the ups and downs of the clay-coloured land and I think of the wheat growing in the fields and the smell of the wool.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

I will circle this entire monastery. The sun was not up yet when I began. It is now fully up in the sky. Sweat stains my skin, and I refuse to notice it. I refuse to notice the hunger in my belly, the pain in my ankles. I will humble myself and my body and my restrictions. I have nothing in my heart but concentration.

I will take these thousands of steps, just as I have countless times before.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

I will forgive. I will be happy. I will learn to let go.

The thoughts that were given to me as I undertook this pilgrimage have been given for a reason. Soon they, too, will pass, and new thoughts will come. It’s really as simple as that. Why do I care about the thoughts that were inside of me once? They can be outside of me.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

This pilgrimage is painful and this pilgrimage fills my body with pain, but in the air of this monastery I feel free of the thoughts which poison my heart and mind when I am elsewhere. When I am on this holy land, I feel the spirits of those who have been here. I take these steps hoping that someday, when I leave and return home, I won’t once again be plagued by my fears and angers and hurts. I have been coming here for decades, and undertaking this pilgrimage for decades, and this day hasn’t come yet, but I have to pray with the faith that tomorrow will be a different day.

I take a step. I bend down my knees. I kneel down. I genuflect. I lay down. I rise up. I face the sun. I stand fully. I take a step.

I pray with full belief in you. I pray knowing full well that someday I will conquer my heartaches.

Pentagon Unveils Details of Stealth Bombing Campaign on Iranian Nuclear Sites, Hailing “Operation Midnight Hammer” as Historic

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. military’s overnight assault on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been described as the largest B-2 bomber mission ever conducted, delivering what defense officials say was crippling damage to key targets. In a rare public briefing on Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine disclosed fresh insights into the covert operation, officially named Operation Midnight Hammer.

“This was one of the most classified and intricately coordinated missions we’ve ever executed,” Gen. Caine told reporters at the Pentagon, referring to the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. “Very few within Washington were even aware of the plan’s timing or operational scope.”

According to Caine, seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers departed from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri under the cover of night, with a parallel group dispatched westward over the Pacific to create a diversion. The 18-hour eastward journey required multiple aerial refueling sessions as the aircraft flew across the Atlantic, through the Mediterranean, and into the Middle East.

Accompanied by fighter escorts and support planes, the strike package carried out what Caine described as a “precisely timed and synchronized maneuver” involving midair rendezvous and deception strategies. “This level of coordination was unprecedented,” he emphasized, presenting a map that detailed the aircraft’s flight path and timeline.

Deception and Precision: The Strike Timeline

At approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday, as the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, a U.S. Navy submarine launched over 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles toward the Isfahan complex. Meanwhile, fighter jets secured the airspace ahead, ensuring a clear path for the bombers.

At around 6:40 p.m. ET — 2:10 a.m. Sunday in Iran — the lead B-2 released two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), known colloquially as “bunker busters,” onto the Fordow facility. Over the next half hour, a total of 14 MOPs were dropped on Fordow and Natanz. The Tomahawks impacted Isfahan shortly afterward.

Caine confirmed that the operation went undetected by Iranian defenses. “No missiles were fired at our aircraft, and Iranian fighters never took off. Our element of surprise held throughout,” he stated.

In total, more than 125 U.S. aircraft contributed to the operation, including bombers, fighter jets, tankers, and surveillance units. Over 75 precision-guided munitions were deployed, resulting in what the Pentagon calls “extensive destruction.”

“Initial damage assessments indicate all three sites have suffered significant structural and functional losses,” said Caine, while noting that comprehensive evaluations are ongoing.

U.S. Forces on High Alert for Potential Iranian Response

Caine warned that any retaliation from Iran or its allied militias would be met with swift consequences. “Our readiness posture is elevated, and any misstep by Iran would be an ill-advised and dangerous move. We will defend our interests,” he said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who stood beside Caine during the press conference, echoed the sentiment, describing the mission as an “overwhelming and calculated triumph.” He emphasized that the operation specifically avoided targeting Iranian personnel or civilian infrastructure.

“This was a mission with a singular purpose: to dismantle the core of Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth said. “The president’s directive was clear and decisive, and our forces executed it flawlessly.”

Hegseth highlighted the historical scope of the mission, calling it the longest-range B-2 deployment since 2001 and the first use of the GBU-57 MOP in combat. “Our bombers struck and returned undetected,” he said. “This was a global demonstration of American stealth, strategy, and strength.”

Trump Applauds Operation, Warns of Escalation

President Donald Trump formally announced the airstrikes on Saturday evening and followed up with a televised address, flanked by Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He praised the military’s efforts, stating the targets were “completely and totally obliterated.”

Trump reiterated his commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and warned of a broader campaign should Tehran refuse to engage in meaningful diplomacy.

“If Iran chooses not to make peace, we are prepared to dismantle remaining targets with speed and precision,” the president declared. “No military force on earth could have carried out what happened tonight. Not even close.”

As international observers assess the implications of the strike, questions loom over whether Iran will respond militarily or seek diplomatic offramps. Meanwhile, Washington stands firm, signaling that this mission was only the beginning if its demands remain unmet.

Trump Hails Strike on Iran Nuclear Sites, Warns of Future Military Action

In a nationally televised address on Saturday evening, President Donald Trump described the recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as a “remarkable military achievement” and cautioned that additional operations could follow unless Tehran agrees to a peace deal on Washington’s terms.

Speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, Trump stated that the objective of the operation was to dismantle Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and eliminate what he called the “nuclear threat from the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the president declared the mission an overwhelming success.

“Tonight, I can inform the world that Iran’s major nuclear sites have been effectively neutralized,” Trump said, referring to strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities. According to Trump, those locations were “completely and totally obliterated” in coordinated U.S. attacks.

The announcement came just hours after Trump revealed the offensive via his Truth Social account. The airstrikes, carried out amid rising tensions in the region, mark a significant escalation in U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel that has intensified over the past two weeks.

In a follow-up social media post, Trump issued a stern warning to Iran, stating that any form of retaliation would be met with overwhelming force. “This must end,” he wrote. “Either there is peace, or Iran will face consequences far more devastating than anything seen in recent days. Tonight’s strike targeted the hardest site. Others remain in our sights if peace talks fail.”

Trump offered no clear definition of what a “satisfactory” peace agreement with Iran would entail. He reiterated his longstanding position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or continue uranium enrichment under any circumstances.

Citing reports from Fox News and The New York Times, officials confirmed that six precision “bunker-buster” bombs were deployed against the Fordow site, which lies deep underground in a fortified mountain facility. Defense Secretary Hegseth and Pentagon officials are expected to provide further details on the strikes at a briefing scheduled for Sunday morning.

During his remarks, Trump noted he had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the operation, emphasizing close coordination between the two allies. “We acted in unison,” he said. The White House also released images from the Situation Room showing top national security officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, monitoring the mission alongside the president.

The strike follows Trump’s earlier suggestion that the U.S. would give Iran two weeks to pursue diplomatic channels before initiating military action. Despite that statement, the abrupt nature of the operation has stirred debate in Washington over executive war powers.

While Republican leaders largely backed the president’s decision, some lawmakers questioned its legality, citing the lack of congressional authorization. “This is unconstitutional,” posted Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on X. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) echoed the concern, saying, “Even if the decision proves strategically sound, its constitutional basis is highly questionable.”

The White House has not yet responded to inquiries regarding these constitutional concerns.

As global leaders and defense analysts continue to assess the ramifications of this strike, the world watches to see whether Iran will escalate the conflict or move toward a negotiated resolution.

Tehran Signals Willingness for Diplomacy Only After Israeli Aggression Ends

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on Friday that Tehran would consider returning to diplomatic negotiations only after Israeli attacks on the country cease and Israel is held responsible for its actions. This declaration came after discussions in Geneva with European officials regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

“Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again and once the aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed… We support the continuation of discussion with Britain, France, Germany and the European Union and express our readiness to meet again in the near future,” Araghchi told journalists after the talks, which were held at a hotel in Geneva.

The Geneva meeting included representatives from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union, who collectively encouraged Iran to stay engaged in diplomatic efforts to resolve the nuclear impasse, especially in light of ongoing Israeli military actions. These European powers underscored the importance of involving the United States in any viable long-term solution.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, speaking on behalf of the European group, noted that Iran had expressed openness to continuing the dialogue. “The good result today is that we leave the room with the impression that the Iranian side is ready to further discuss all the important questions,” he said. Emphasizing the need for broader international involvement, he added, “It is of great importance that the United States takes part in these negotiations and the solution.”

Although no major breakthrough was reached during the Geneva meeting, the joint statement delivered by the top diplomats from the four entities suggested cautious optimism. The statement, read in their respective native languages, emphasized the importance of sustaining discussions but did not indicate any substantial progress had been made during the session.

While diplomatic discussions unfolded in Geneva, the conflict on the ground continued to escalate. The Israeli military confirmed it had launched a new series of airstrikes targeting Iranian missile launchers in the southwestern region of Iran. This marked a continuation of Israel’s offensive campaign, which it claims is intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The cycle of violence intensified further when Iranian forces retaliated by launching another wave of missile attacks. According to local officials, at least 19 individuals were wounded in the Israeli port city of Haifa during the missile strike on Friday afternoon. The situation on the ground reflects a rapidly deteriorating security environment, which poses risks not just to Israel and Iran but to the broader Middle East region.

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy acknowledged the severity of the situation and urged all parties to avoid escalation. “This is a perilous moment, and it is hugely important that we don’t see regional escalation of this conflict,” he said, reinforcing the call for restraint.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot also voiced concern, cautioning that a military solution would not resolve the crisis. “There can be no definitive solution through military means to the Iran nuclear problem. Military operations can delay it but they cannot eliminate it,” he said. Barrot also responded to provocative statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who refused to rule out the possibility of targeting Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In response, Barrot stated, “It is illusory and dangerous to want to impose a regime change from the outside. It is up to the people to decide their own destiny.”

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, echoed these concerns and stressed the importance of ongoing dialogue. “Today the regional escalation benefits no-one. We must keep the discussions open,” she said, reaffirming the EU’s commitment to maintaining communication channels.

Earlier in the day, Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency reported that Iran remained committed to dialogue and had not abandoned the negotiation process. According to the report, the Iranian delegation “emphasised that Iran has not left the negotiating table,” signaling Tehran’s intention to remain involved in diplomatic initiatives, albeit conditionally.

The recent series of events marks the latest chapter in a long-standing and complex conflict between Iran and Israel. The Israeli government initiated its military operation one week ago, declaring its objective was to stop Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. Since then, tensions have escalated rapidly, drawing in international concern and diplomatic interventions.

The Geneva talks were aimed at averting a wider conflict and restoring some semblance of diplomatic momentum to the nuclear discussions. However, the current conditions—defined by military escalation, inflammatory rhetoric, and widespread uncertainty—pose significant challenges to achieving a sustainable resolution. As European diplomats attempt to mediate between the involved parties, the overarching message remains consistent: diplomacy is essential, but its success depends on the cessation of hostilities and the willingness of all sides, including the United States and Israel, to return to the table.

Though the immediate future of negotiations remains unclear, the Geneva discussions signal a glimmer of hope that diplomacy may yet offer a path forward—provided that military aggression subsides and accountability is pursued.

UN Nuclear Chief Raises Concerns About Potential Contamination at Iran’s Natanz Facility After Israeli Strike

The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog has expressed serious concerns over possible radiological and chemical contamination at Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment center in Natanz. This follows a recent Israeli military strike targeting the facility. While radiation levels outside the site remain within safe limits, the situation inside the complex poses several hazards, especially involving radioactive and toxic materials.

Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), addressed an emergency session of the agency’s board in Vienna on Monday. The meeting was called at Russia’s request to discuss the consequences of the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. During his remarks, Grossi acknowledged the dangers within the Natanz compound but also sought to reassure the international community that no immediate radiological threat had been detected beyond the facility.

“The level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact to the population or the environment from this event,” Grossi stated.

Despite the absence of external radiation risks, the IAEA chief highlighted a significant concern for workers and inspectors inside the facility due to the potential release of uranium hexafluoride gas. This compound is produced when uranium is mixed with fluorine during the enrichment process. Grossi explained that uranium hexafluoride is not only highly corrosive and reactive but also exceptionally hazardous if inhaled.

“The risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the facilities,” Grossi added.

He warned that the material’s chemical toxicity could pose serious health risks, especially because it can burn human tissue upon contact and is deadly if inhaled in even moderate amounts. Experts have also noted that the compound is highly volatile and can quickly spread if containment is compromised.

Grossi emphasized that the agency’s ability to fully assess the situation is being hindered by the lack of timely technical information from Iran. This data is essential to evaluate any environmental and health impact resulting from the strike. Without proper insight into the facility’s internal condition, the IAEA cannot effectively monitor the consequences or provide appropriate support.

“Amid these challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the facilities and their respective sites,” Grossi said. “Without information, the U.N. agency cannot accurately assess the radiological conditions and potential impacts on the population and the environment and cannot provide the necessary assistance.”

Despite the operational difficulties, Grossi reassured the board that U.N. inspectors would remain in Iran. He noted that inspections would resume at the earliest opportunity once safety within the affected areas could be confirmed.

“U.N. inspectors would remain present in Iran and inspect the nuclear facilities as soon as safety conditions allow,” he stated.

The IAEA Director-General issued a stark warning about the broader implications of military actions targeting nuclear sites. He stressed that such operations could trigger unforeseen radiological events, with long-term consequences not only for the immediate area but also for global efforts to maintain nuclear safety and security. Grossi called for urgent diplomatic engagement to prevent further escalation.

“Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he warned.

At the same emergency meeting, Venezuela delivered a joint statement on behalf of several nations, including Iran and Russia. The group condemned the Israeli strike, calling it a violation of international norms and a threat to global security. The statement was made behind closed doors, and diplomats who were present shared its contents anonymously due to the confidential nature of the discussions.

According to these diplomats, the joint statement denounced what it described as “an unprovoked and aggressive act” against Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure. The coalition expressed support for Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international oversight and called for restraint from all parties involved in the ongoing tensions.

Meanwhile, satellite imagery has provided a clearer picture of the physical damage inflicted on the Natanz site. Analysis conducted by The Associated Press using images from Planet Labs PBC revealed widespread destruction across several parts of the complex. Photographs taken on Saturday, shortly after the Israeli operation, show that multiple structures at the facility had been either significantly damaged or completely destroyed.

Among the affected structures were those identified by nuclear experts as essential for supplying power to the enrichment systems. These buildings play a crucial role in maintaining the functionality of the centrifuges and other machinery used to process uranium. Their loss could substantially hinder Iran’s enrichment activities, at least temporarily.

The attack and its aftermath come amid already heightened tensions between Iran and Israel over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel has repeatedly stated that it will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and has taken preemptive actions in the past to disrupt what it views as a growing threat. Iran, on the other hand, maintains that its nuclear program is solely for civilian energy purposes and remains under the scrutiny of international bodies such as the IAEA.

This latest strike further complicates the already fragile diplomatic landscape surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities. The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has been largely inactive since the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018. Efforts to revive the deal have stalled amid growing mistrust, regional tensions, and now, escalating military actions.

Grossi’s remarks also highlighted the precarious balance the IAEA must maintain in situations involving geopolitical conflict and nuclear oversight. The agency is tasked with ensuring nuclear safety and verifying compliance with international agreements, even in environments where political and military developments pose significant challenges.

The IAEA continues to advocate for a return to diplomacy and transparency, stressing that technical monitoring and access to sites are key pillars of its mission. Without them, the international community is left to speculate about the risks and developments inside facilities like Natanz, with limited tools to verify claims or intervene in a timely manner.

As the situation evolves, the focus remains on ensuring the safety of nuclear materials and the prevention of any release that could harm human populations or the environment. The IAEA’s call for renewed cooperation and de-escalation echoes the broader concern that military interventions near sensitive nuclear infrastructure could lead to unintended and possibly catastrophic consequences.

With no new damage reported at either Natanz or the Isfahan nuclear research site since Saturday, according to Grossi, attention now turns to whether all parties involved will take steps to reduce tensions and re-engage in dialogue.

He concluded his address by reaffirming the IAEA’s commitment to staying engaged in Iran and conducting thorough inspections once conditions allow, underscoring the importance of technical data sharing and peaceful resolution efforts in the interest of global nuclear safety.

Israel-Iran Conflict Escalates Amid G7 Diplomacy and Rising Civilian Toll

The fifth day of open hostilities between Israel and Iran has seen an escalation of attacks, with both countries trading strikes and civilians bearing the brunt of the conflict. The situation has turned increasingly deadly, with at least 224 people reported killed in Iran and 24 fatalities confirmed in Israel since the outbreak of violence.

As the fighting intensifies, U.S. President Donald Trump made the unexpected decision to leave the G7 summit in France a day ahead of schedule, citing the need to return to Washington to deal with the crisis. French President Emmanuel Macron disclosed that the United States had put forward a ceasefire proposal, suggesting a possible diplomatic channel to contain the violence. Trump, in a stark warning, advised Iranians to leave the capital, Tehran, pointing out the severe risk posed to its population of 10 million.

In a statement likely to inflame tensions further, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that the Israeli strikes had dealt a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “I estimate we are sending them back a very, very long time,” he said, referring to the impact of Israeli attacks on key elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to reports, Israel had targeted three of Iran’s most vital nuclear facilities along with top nuclear scientists. However, the full extent of the destruction remains unknown.

Iran’s state media announced that the death toll from an Israeli strike on the country’s national broadcasting headquarters has increased. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) was hit during the series of airstrikes. Two individuals have been confirmed dead: Nima Rajabpour, a news editor, and Masoumeh Azimi, an administrative worker. The Iranian state-run news agency IRNA confirmed the casualties in what they called a targeted strike on a civilian institution.

Meanwhile, the Group of Seven (G7) leaders issued a joint statement on Monday calling for a peaceful resolution to the spiraling Iran-Israel crisis. The statement, initially met with hesitation by President Trump, ultimately received his endorsement after diplomatic language revisions were made. An official familiar with the matter stated that “after changing some of the language in the document — including calls for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis and upholding international law — Trump signed off.”

The finalized G7 declaration included a broad appeal to reduce conflict in the Middle East. “We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza,” read the official statement, attributed to the collective “G7 leaders.” Such wording typically indicates unanimous agreement among participating nations.

The diplomatic efforts appeared to intensify following Trump’s departure from the summit. According to one official familiar with the sequence of events, Trump had earlier signaled he would not endorse the draft version of the G7 statement, which had been crafted primarily by European leaders. However, as the language of the statement was adjusted to align more closely with American positions—particularly the emphasis on diplomacy and international law—Trump agreed to support the document.

The joint declaration reaffirmed the commitment of the G7 nations to restoring calm in the Middle East. “The statement said the G7 leaders ‘reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East,’” the official confirmed. Although CNN reached out to the White House for additional comments, no official response was immediately provided.

Trump’s early exit from the summit was seen by some as a sign of the gravity with which Washington is viewing the current hostilities. Before boarding his flight, he emphasized the urgency of monitoring the ongoing military developments between Israel and Iran, implying that further escalation might require a coordinated international response or heightened American involvement.

Back in the Middle East, the human toll continues to rise. The reported casualties in Iran have already reached over 220, signaling the scale and severity of Israel’s air campaign. Iran’s government has yet to provide a comprehensive damage assessment of the targeted nuclear facilities, but analysts warn that any substantial destruction could provoke a long-term crisis over nuclear proliferation and regional security.

The strike on Iran’s state media building has also intensified global concern over civilian targets being drawn into the conflict. The deaths of Nima Rajabpour and Masoumeh Azimi are being cited by Iranian officials as evidence that Israel is deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure, a charge that Israel has not publicly addressed.

On the Israeli side, the casualty count has reached 24, with several regions facing rocket attacks and retaliatory drone strikes. While Israel’s military has not released detailed operational updates, Prime Minister Netanyahu remains adamant that the country’s strategic objectives are being met. “I estimate we are sending them back a very, very long time,” he reiterated, implying that Israel’s targeting of Iran’s nuclear apparatus was both preemptive and successful.

This unfolding conflict now places the global community at a crossroads, with the G7’s joint statement reflecting a shared interest in de-escalation. Still, observers caution that even with high-level diplomatic interventions, the dynamics on the ground could outpace efforts to secure a ceasefire.

Although the call for peace and stability is loud and clear from world leaders, there is growing skepticism about whether either Israel or Iran is ready to halt military operations. The possibility of the crisis spilling over into other flashpoints, such as Gaza and southern Lebanon, is now a major concern for international security analysts.

With the G7 summit concluding and the U.S. President returning home, attention is now turning to how Washington might further influence developments. Whether Trump’s backing of the ceasefire language and the G7 resolution will lead to any immediate diplomatic breakthrough remains uncertain.

At the very least, the joint G7 statement has managed to articulate a consensus among major world powers, even as missiles continue to fly and families mourn their dead. The test ahead lies in translating those words into action—before the cost of war climbs even higher.

Pope Leo XIV Calls for Justice and Hope in Serving the Poor

Pope Leo XIV has called attention to the spiritual and material dimensions of poverty in his message for the ninth World Day of the Poor, emphasizing that recognizing God is the true measure of wealth. In the message released by the Vatican press office on June 13, the Holy Father stated, “The gravest poverty is not to know God,” adding that when we walk through life with God, “we discover the real treasure that we need.”

The Pope warned against putting too much trust in material possessions, observing that “wealth often disappoints and can lead to tragic situations of poverty — above all the poverty born of the failure to recognize our need for God and of the attempt to live without him.”

Scheduled for observance on Sunday, November 16, the World Day of the Poor was introduced to urge the Church and society to place the needs of the impoverished at the center of attention. Much like Pope Francis once denounced a growing “globalization of indifference,” Pope Leo raised concern about becoming “hardened and resigned” in response to emerging forms of destitution. His message encourages reflection on social responsibilities, rooted in the belief that God’s creation intends for the goods of the earth and the results of human labor to be shared equitably.

He supported this point by quoting St. Augustine: “You give bread to a hungry person; but it would be better if none were hungry, so that you would have no need to give it away. You clothe the naked, but would that all were clothed and that there be no need for supply this lack.”

Pope Leo also drew attention to the moral obligation behind helping the poor, stating that this is “a matter of justice before it is a question of charity.” He emphasized that many of us may find ourselves losing things we once took for granted, such as “a home, sufficient food for each day, access to health care and a good education, information, religious freedom, and freedom of expression.”

For him, the World Day of the Poor serves as a reminder that the poor should remain central to the Church’s mission — not only in charitable works but also in the broader message it preaches. “God took on their poverty in order to enrich us through their voices, their stories, and their faces,” the pontiff wrote, noting that the message was signed on June 13, the feast day of St. Anthony of Padua, patron saint of the poor.

He was clear in stating that the poor “are not a distraction for the Church but our beloved brothers and sisters.” According to him, the poor offer a living witness to the Gospel through “their lives, their words, and their wisdom.”

Importantly, the Pope rejected the view of the poor as merely passive recipients of aid. Instead, he described them as “creative subjects” who challenge the Church “to find novel ways of living out the Gospel today.” In this light, he called for every kind of poverty to be seen as a call “to experience the Gospel concretely and to offer effective signs of hope.”

Despite being deprived of material security, the poor often embody a more resilient form of faith. “They cannot rely on the security of power and possessions; on the contrary, they are at their mercy and often victims of them. Their hope must necessarily be sought elsewhere,” the Pope explained. He added that by placing God at the center of our lives as “our first and only hope,” we transition “from fleeting hopes to a lasting hope.”

The message also quoted Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium, which declares that the greatest injustice suffered by the poor is “the lack of spiritual care.” Echoing this, Pope Leo commented, “This is a rule of faith and the secret of hope: All this earth’s goods, material realities, worldly pleasures, economic prosperity, however important, cannot bring happiness to our hearts.”

He went on to reflect on the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, asserting that “hope is born of faith, which nourishes and sustains it on the foundation of charity, the mother of all virtues. All of us need charity, here and now.”

Charity, according to Pope Leo, is not just a private virtue but a social commandment that should guide our actions toward the common good. “Those who lack charity not only lack faith and hope; they also rob their neighbors of hope,” he stated.

He emphasized the foundational nature of hope in Christian belief by likening it to an anchor, a symbol used since the early Church. “Amid life’s trials, our hope is inspired by the firm and reassuring certainty of God’s love, poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. That hope does not disappoint,” he said.

Addressing the structural dimensions of poverty, the Pope highlighted the necessity of engaging actively with history and society. “Poverty has structural causes that must be addressed and eliminated. In the meantime, each of us is called to offer new signs of hope that will bear witness to Christian charity, just as many saints have done over the centuries.”

He identified hospitals and schools as essential tools for reaching the marginalized, arguing that these institutions “should be part of every country’s public policy.” Yet he lamented, “Wars and inequalities often prevent this from happening.”

He pointed to grassroots initiatives as beacons of hope, referencing “group homes, communities for minors, centers for listening and acceptance, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and schools for low-income students.” According to the Pope, “How many of these quiet signs of hope often go unnoticed and yet are so important for setting aside our indifference and inspiring others to become involved in various forms of volunteer work!”

In conclusion, Pope Leo called for the global community and Church leaders to formulate policies targeting both old and emerging forms of poverty. “Labor, education, housing, and health are the foundations of a security that will never be attained by the use of arms,” he stressed. Expressing optimism, he said, “I express my appreciation for those initiatives that already exist, and for the efforts demonstrated daily on the international level by great numbers of men and women of goodwill.”

With a blend of spiritual reflection and practical guidance, Pope Leo XIV’s message for the World Day of the Poor seeks to reawaken compassion, deepen faith, and spur action for justice in a world that continues to be marked by inequality and suffering.

Trump Blocked Israeli Plan to Assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Amid Escalating Tensions

U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly intervened to halt an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to information from two U.S. officials cited by Reuters. This revelation adds a new dimension to the ongoing crisis involving Iran, Israel, and the broader international community.

A senior official from the Trump administration disclosed the rationale behind the decision, emphasizing that such an action was unwarranted at that point. “Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do, we’re not even talking about going after the political leadership,” the official was quoted as saying. This statement underscores the administration’s hesitancy to endorse escalatory measures in the absence of direct Iranian aggression against U.S. citizens.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked to respond to the report, avoided providing a direct confirmation or denial. “There’s so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to get into that,” he said. However, Netanyahu did express a strong stance regarding Israel’s approach, stating, “But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we’ll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States.”

Reuters reported that American officials have maintained regular contact with their Israeli counterparts throughout the unfolding crisis. The discussions intensified following a substantial Israeli offensive aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Though it remains uncertain whether Trump personally communicated the veto to Israeli officials, multiple sources confirmed his consistent dialogue with Netanyahu during this critical period.

The situation became more volatile with Israel’s military actions against Iran, which began on a Friday and have since continued. In a separate appearance on Fox News, Netanyahu hinted that the ultimate goal of the military campaign could be regime change in Iran. He also acknowledged informing President Trump before the operations were initiated, reinforcing the idea that the U.S. was not caught off guard.

Despite the high tensions and military developments, Trump adopted a mixed approach in his public communications. He issued a forceful warning to Tehran via his social media platform, Truth Social, asserting that the U.S. military would respond with overwhelming force if Iran dared to target American assets. “If we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US armed forces will come down on you at levels never seen before,” Trump declared. This message served as a deterrent against potential Iranian retaliation amid the unfolding conflict.

Iran had reportedly warned that it would target military bases and naval assets belonging to the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France if they interfered with Iranian strikes against Israel. These threats heightened the international concern surrounding the expanding crisis in the Middle East.

However, Trump did not rely solely on threats. He also left the door open for diplomacy, expressing hope that a resolution could be achieved. “We can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel and end this bloody conflict,” he stated. This dual message — combining military readiness with diplomatic outreach — aimed to balance deterrence with the possibility of peaceful negotiation.

Amid the mounting hostilities, Trump reiterated his longstanding belief in the value of diplomacy and called on both Iran and Israel to seek a negotiated settlement. He referenced his own track record as a peacemaker, asserting that his administration had played a pivotal role in resolving other international disputes. “I never got credit” for these accomplishments, he lamented, pointing to previous efforts to facilitate peace between Serbia and Kosovo, as well as helping ease tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia over past disagreements.

In a separate development, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan engaged with Trump in a phone call on Sunday, offering Turkey’s help as a mediator in the intensifying conflict. Erdogan suggested that Ankara could play a constructive role in addressing the nuclear standoff and reducing the likelihood of further violence between Israel and Iran.

Meanwhile, the conflict on the ground showed no signs of abating. Israel launched a third consecutive day of airstrikes targeting multiple locations within Iran. Some of these strikes reportedly penetrated Iranian air defense systems and reached urban centers, raising concerns about civilian casualties and wider regional instability. Israeli officials warned that additional attacks could follow, suggesting the situation might deteriorate further.

The toll from these attacks has already been severe. According to Human Rights Activists, a Washington-based non-governmental organization that monitors the situation in Iran, at least 406 people have been confirmed dead, and 654 others have sustained injuries as a result of the airstrikes. These figures have not been verified by the Iranian government, which has yet to release official statistics regarding casualties. The lack of transparency has made it difficult for international observers to fully assess the scale of the humanitarian impact.

Efforts to de-escalate the crisis through diplomacy have also suffered setbacks. Talks that were scheduled to address both the immediate violence and broader concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions have reportedly been canceled due to the ongoing military activity. The collapse of these negotiations represents a significant blow to those hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The series of developments paints a troubling picture of a rapidly deteriorating situation, with potential implications far beyond the region. Trump’s reported decision to prevent an Israeli attempt to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader reflects the delicate balance that global leaders must maintain in the face of escalating threats. While military responses remain on the table, there is still some hope that diplomatic engagement might avert an all-out war.

In the end, Trump’s approach seems to straddle two divergent paths — one of power projection and another of negotiation. His administration’s decision to restrain an Israeli strike on Iran’s political leadership, combined with his repeated calls for diplomacy, suggests an awareness of the potentially catastrophic consequences of unchecked escalation. Whether these efforts will lead to de-escalation or whether the region will spiral further into conflict remains uncertain.

With Israel continuing its military operations and Iran threatening retaliation, the international community faces a critical test. The choices made in the coming days could determine not only the fate of the current standoff but also the broader trajectory of Middle Eastern geopolitics in the years to come.

Trump’s G-7 Visit Highlights Global Tensions, Trade Talks, and Alliance Pressures

President Donald Trump is set to travel to Canada on Sunday for his first Group of Seven (G-7) summit since returning to office in January, with the event taking on greater significance due to escalating tensions in the Middle East and other major global issues. As world leaders gather, the recent exchange of attacks between Israel and Iran, ongoing trade negotiations, and the Russia-Ukraine war will be high on the agenda. Trump’s presence in Canada will also revive talk of his past suggestions to annex the country as a 51st U.S. state.

Israel-Iran Conflict Dominates Summit Focus

The G-7 meeting comes at a volatile moment in the Middle East, following a dramatic escalation involving Israel and Iran. Israel launched strikes on Iranian military bases and nuclear facilities, prompting retaliatory missile attacks that hit residential areas in both Tel Aviv and Tehran. This latest clash has heightened global concern over the potential for a broader regional war.

While the Trump administration has previously worked to reach an agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions, the latest violence has complicated those efforts. Still, Trump has hinted that diplomacy is not entirely off the table. Speaking to ABC News, Trump declared, “I think it’s been excellent,” referring to the Israeli strikes. “We gave them a chance and they didn’t take it. They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you’re going to get hit. And there’s more to come. A lot more.”

Although the U.S. initially distanced itself from the Israeli operation, by Friday afternoon a U.S. official confirmed the country was assisting Israel in intercepting incoming Iranian missiles. Later in the day, Trump indicated a possible renewed opportunity for nuclear talks, suggesting Iranian officials had started reaching out to him.

Ahead of the strikes, Trump had cautioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the timing, concerned it could interfere with diplomatic negotiations. “As long as I think there is an agreement, I don’t want them going in because I think that would blow it. Might help it, actually. But also could blow it,” he told reporters Thursday.

Talk of Canada Becoming 51st State Lingers

Although not on the official agenda, Trump’s earlier remarks about absorbing Canada into the United States are expected to cast a shadow over his visit. He has claimed that Canada would benefit from such a union, citing economic and military advantages. Trump will meet Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Monday, continuing a dialogue that began during Carney’s White House visit in early May.

During that meeting, Trump reiterated his provocative stance. “I say ‘never say never.’ I’ve had many, many things that were not doable, and they ended up being doable,” he said. “Canada loves us, and we love Canada. That’s I think the number one thing that’s important. But we’ll see. Over time, we’ll see what happens.”

Canadian politicians and citizens have largely rejected the idea of joining the U.S., and demonstrations during Trump’s visit are possible. However, the summit is being held in the remote area of Kananaskis in the Canadian Rockies, where public protests may be less visible.

Trade Negotiations Face Crucial Deadline

A key topic at the summit will be global trade, especially as Trump’s 90-day suspension on reciprocal tariffs is set to expire on July 8. With deals announced only with China and the United Kingdom so far, the pressure is on for additional agreements. Japan and European Union nations, both vital trading partners, will be in attendance.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted during congressional testimony that the administration may offer some flexibility to countries that are negotiating in earnest. “It is highly likely that for those countries that are negotiating – or trading blocs, in the case of the EU – who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue the good-faith negotiation,” Bessent said. “If someone is not negotiating, then we will not.”

The administration initially set a lofty goal of securing 90 trade agreements in 90 days. Although Trump has mentioned that deals with India, Japan, and Vietnam are close, none have been finalized yet. On Thursday, Trump noted that Indian representatives were in Washington working on a deal and that officials from Pakistan might follow next week.

The White House is under pressure to deliver results, particularly after Trump was forced to delay his tariff strategy in April in response to backlash from Republicans and financial markets. Trump has stated that if talks fail, his administration will unilaterally set new tariff rates.

Russia-Ukraine War Remains Stalemated

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to attend the G-7 summit, though it remains unclear whether he will have a private meeting with Trump. The war in Ukraine presents a thorny issue for Trump, who promised during the 2024 campaign to end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office. However, nearly five months into his presidency, there has been little visible progress.

Russia has rejected U.S. proposals for a temporary ceasefire. Trump’s frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin has grown, calling him “absolutely CRAZY” in a recent comment. At the same time, Trump also expressed disillusionment with Ukraine’s leadership. “I’m very disappointed in Russia, but I’m disappointed in Ukraine also because I think deals could have been made,” he said.

During Zelensky’s February visit to the White House, tensions flared when Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for American support. Trump has pushed Zelensky to take more initiative in ending the war.

Following a Ukrainian drone strike on Russian bombers earlier this month, Trump spoke with Putin. He later described the conversation as “good” but noted it likely wouldn’t “lead to immediate peace.”

Concerns that Russia may not stop with Ukraine have been voiced by U.S. defense officials. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently told senators that “it remains to be seen” whether Putin would limit his ambitions, while Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine warned that Putin may push beyond Ukraine if successful.

Month of High-Stakes Diplomatic Engagements

Trump’s visit to Canada marks the beginning of a busy month of global diplomacy. Later in June, he is scheduled to travel to The Hague for the NATO Summit, his first since retaking office. The G-7 meeting will also be attended by several non-member leaders, including Zelensky, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Trump will hold side meetings with some leaders, though the final schedule remains in flux. “I can confirm there will be quite a few bilateral meetings between Trump and other foreign leaders. The White House is still working very hard to finalize that schedule,” she said Wednesday.

The NATO summit, set for June 24 and 25, will reflect shifting dynamics in the alliance. Unlike President Biden, who emphasized unwavering support for NATO, Trump has previously questioned whether the U.S. should defend member states that don’t meet defense spending targets.

As Trump re-engages with allies, the weeks ahead will test his ability to manage intensifying global crises, sensitive diplomatic relationships, and the mounting expectations of his administration.

Modi’s Canada Visit for G7 Marks Diplomatic Opportunity Amid Strained India-Canada Relations

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Canada next week, following an invitation from his Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, to attend the upcoming Group of Seven (G7) summit. The summit, set to take place from June 15 to 17 in Kananaskis, Alberta, will mark Modi’s return to Canada after nearly a decade. Although India is not a G7 member—which includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States—New Delhi has consistently received invitations to the summit since 2019, signaling India’s increasing clout on the global stage.

Highlighting the rationale behind extending the invitation to Modi despite the recent turbulence in bilateral ties, Canadian Prime Minister Carney stated, “India is the fifth-largest economy in the world, the most populous country in the world and central to supply chains.”

This visit will be Modi’s first to Canada since 2015. Expressing optimism about the upcoming summit and the potential to enhance bilateral cooperation, Modi remarked, “As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigor, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the summit.”

Political experts believe that Modi’s presence at the G7 could serve as a critical opening to rebuild fractured ties between India and Canada. Relations between the two countries soured significantly after Canada accused Indian agents of involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a 45-year-old Canadian citizen and Sikh separatist advocate. Nijjar was known for his activism supporting a separate Sikh homeland, Khalistan, to be carved from Indian territory.

India strongly rejected these allegations, calling them “absurd” and “preposterous.” The dispute escalated to the point where both countries expelled each other’s diplomats in 2023 and 2024, pushing diplomatic relations to a low point. However, expectations for a diplomatic reset have grown since Carney assumed office in March, replacing Justin Trudeau.

According to Meera Shankar, India’s former ambassador to the United States, Modi’s visit “hopefully mark[s] the beginning of a reset in India’s relations with Canada, which have plummeted in recent years over the Canadian allegations on the Nijjar case and India’s belief that Canada indulges Sikh extremism directed against India.” She added that both nations stand to benefit “if the relationship is stabilized, especially in a volatile world.”

The India-Canada partnership includes significant trade and investment flows. In 2023, bilateral trade between the two nations reached around $9 billion. Additionally, Canadian pension funds have invested approximately $55 billion in India. These financial ties underscore the interdependence of both countries. On the demographic side, Canada hosts a vibrant Indian diaspora of nearly two million people, comprising about 5% of the country’s total population. Canada is also a favored destination for Indian students, second only to the United States.

Still, major unresolved issues could hamper progress in healing relations. Central among them is the continued investigation into Nijjar’s assassination. Complicating the matter is Canada’s status as home to the largest Sikh diaspora globally, estimated at around 800,000 people. Within this population are proponents of the Khalistan movement, a fringe separatist group seeking to establish a sovereign Sikh state from parts of India’s Punjab region. This movement is outlawed in India, which has repeatedly urged Canada to take firmer action against its supporters.

Meanwhile, Ottawa has accused New Delhi of orchestrating an expansive campaign against Sikh activists in Canada. This alleged campaign, according to Canadian authorities, has involved intimidation, threats, and even violent acts.

Carney’s decision to invite Modi to the G7 summit has not gone unchallenged. Some Sikh advocacy groups in Canada have expressed strong disapproval, with protests anticipated during Modi’s visit. However, not all Canadian observers view the invitation as controversial. Former Canadian diplomat David Mckinnon applauded the move, saying, “The politics of this decision in Canada, and particularly within the Liberal Party, were not easy, but Carney made the right choice. It’s also notable that the leader of the opposition, Pierre Poilievre, quickly welcomed it.”

Despite these positive sentiments, Mckinnon cautioned against assuming that bilateral ties are fully repaired. “A big outstanding question is whether this trip leads to a mutually agreeable off-ramp from the allegations of Indian government interference in Canada, including involvement in the Nijjar murder, and India’s allegations about Khalistani activities in Canada,” he said.

Diplomatic efforts to strengthen relations have been underway. In the past month, India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar held a phone conversation with Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand. The two leaders discussed steps to broaden economic cooperation and advance common goals.

Ajay Bisaria, India’s former high commissioner to Canada, noted that Modi’s attendance at the G7 summit provides an opening to stabilize bilateral relations while also concentrating on economic and strategic matters. “It always presents a strategic opportunity for Modi to discuss the global commons like climate, trade, supply chains and the broader development agenda with the developed world,” Bisaria explained.

Beyond India-Canada issues, Modi may also use the summit platform to raise other pressing international matters. For example, Bisaria noted that Modi could urge a tougher global stance toward Pakistan, especially following a recent deadly assault on tourists in India-administered Kashmir. New Delhi has blamed Islamabad for backing the attackers, a charge that Pakistan has denied.

In Bisaria’s view, the summit is “a diplomatic opportunity to present India’s current concerns to key world leaders, while China and Pakistan are out of the room.” This absence could allow India to voice its positions without direct opposition from its regional adversaries.

In summary, Modi’s visit to Canada for the G7 summit arrives at a delicate time for bilateral relations. While underlying tensions remain, particularly concerning the Nijjar case and the Khalistan issue, the high-level diplomatic engagement signals potential progress. With growing trade, sizable diaspora connections, and shared democratic values, India and Canada have several incentives to mend ties. Whether Modi’s visit yields a lasting improvement in relations will depend on how both nations navigate their sensitive issues, particularly those that intersect domestic and international politics.

Air India Flight AI 171 Crash: A Global Tragedy and a Testament to Shared Humanity

On Thursday, June 12, 2025, a harrowing event unfolded that captured the world’s attention and brought it to a standstill. Air India Flight AI 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner en route to London Gatwick, crashed shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad at approximately 1.38 pm IST. The catastrophic nature of the accident, with visuals of thick smoke rising from a densely populated area and grim reports of widespread loss of life, sent shockwaves through every corner of the globe.

In that devastating moment, national boundaries faded, and the digital space transformed into a unified zone of collective mourning, anxiety, and emotional solidarity. The incident became a painful reminder of the fragility of life and the deep, universal connections that unite people beyond their geographies.

Disasters of this magnitude remind us of a truth we often forget—our shared vulnerability. The victims aboard that aircraft were more than just statistics. They were individuals—beloved sons and daughters, cherished parents, close friends, hardworking colleagues—each carrying with them dreams, ambitions, and life stories tragically interrupted. Among them were families eagerly beginning new chapters of life and professionals undertaking business journeys, none imagining their voyage would end in such devastation.

The impact was not confined to the passengers alone. As details emerged, the public learned with sorrow of the collateral damage on the ground, particularly at the B J Medical College hostel. Several medical students lost their lives when the aircraft crashed into the area. These young individuals had dedicated themselves to the noble pursuit of healing and serving others. Their promising futures were wiped out in an instant, adding another layer of heartbreak to an already unimaginable tragedy.

Amid the chaos, there emerged a glimmer of hope—a lone survivor. Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a 38-year-old British citizen of Indian descent, was miraculously rescued from the wreckage. His survival offered a brief reprieve from the overwhelming despair. Thrown from the plane as part of the fuselage disintegrated mid-air, Vishwash landed near an open field, distanced from the core crash zone. Dazed and injured, he lived through an ordeal that would haunt most forever.

Vishwash shared fragments of his terrifying experience, describing the ascent, a sudden violent jolt, and flashes of green and white before the plane hit the ground. His account not only underscored the randomness of fate but also humanized the catastrophe. Though alive, he bore the emotional burden of knowing his brother Ajay, who was also on board, did not survive.

The immediate response from global leaders illustrated the magnitude of the tragedy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed profound grief, saying the crash had “stunned and saddened” the entire country and was “heartbreaking beyond words.” The following day, on June 13, he visited the crash site, walking among the smouldering wreckage and taking in the full scope of the disaster firsthand. He then visited Civil Hospital to meet Vishwash, offering words of encouragement and compassion.

Modi also interacted with other injured survivors and hospital staff, ensuring that every possible measure was being taken for their recovery. Following these visits, he led a high-level meeting focused on coordinating relief and rehabilitation efforts, stressing the importance of extending full support to grieving families.

Expressions of condolences came from around the world. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the scenes as “devastating,” particularly noting the number of British nationals aboard the flight. He assured that updates and necessary support would be continuously provided.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla expressed being in “desperate shock” and extended their “deepest possible sympathy.” They also acknowledged and praised the emergency response teams working tirelessly at the crash site.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent his “heartfelt prayers” to those affected, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen all offered messages of sympathy and unity, emphasizing how this tragic event had impacted people beyond India’s borders.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also extended his condolences. “We extend our condolences to the families of the victims grieving this immense loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this heartbreaking tragedy,” he said. This show of solidarity, especially from countries with historically tense relationships, illustrated how deeply humanitarian crises can transcend political divides.

At Indian Newslink, we join in mourning the loss of every life touched by this unspeakable tragedy. To those who perished—whether aboard Flight AI 171 or on the ground in Ahmedabad—we pray for eternal peace. We offer our sincerest condolences to the grieving families, whose lives have been forever changed. No words can fully capture their sorrow, but in the shared embrace of a compassionate world, we hope they find a fragment of solace.

This incident is more than just a national tragedy—it is a global one. It reflects how, beneath our cultural and ideological differences, we are fundamentally bound by our common humanity. In the face of suffering, people the world over reached out with kindness, with empathy, and with unity. The reactions and gestures that followed serve as testament to the enduring power of human connection.

Let this horrific event not be remembered solely for its destruction and grief, but also for the way it brought people together. Let it remind us that in moments of darkness, our capacity for compassion, resilience, and solidarity shines through.

The crash of Air India Flight AI 171 is a painful wound on the global psyche, but it also affirms the immense strength of community and shared humanity. As we move forward, may this tragedy ignite a renewed commitment to valuing life, supporting one another, and fostering a world where empathy prevails over indifference—even in the face of unimaginable loss.

Israeli Airstrikes Target Iranian Nuclear Sites, Kill Top Officials, Prompting Fears of Escalation

In a dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Iran early Friday morning, local time, aimed at facilities it identified as being linked to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The strikes have intensified global concern over the possibility of a wider regional war, especially as both countries exchanged threats and retaliatory actions.

According to Iranian state media, the Israeli assault resulted in the deaths of two of Iran’s most senior military leaders. Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, the highest-ranking official in Iran’s Armed Forces, was confirmed dead. He was killed alongside Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These losses mark a severe blow to Iran’s military hierarchy.

In addition to these key figures, two of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists were also killed in the strikes. Iranian news outlets identified them as Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi. Both individuals played central roles in the country’s nuclear development program, and their deaths are expected to have a significant impact on Iran’s scientific and military infrastructure.

In response to the Israeli operation, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a stern warning, vowing retribution. “With this crime, the Zionist regime has brought a bitter and painful fate upon itself, and it will certainly face it,” Khamenei declared in an official statement.

The Israeli offensive reportedly included airstrikes in various parts of Iran. In the capital city of Tehran, multiple casualties were reported. The city of Natanz, which houses one of Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment facilities, was also struck. However, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Isfahan nuclear facility remained unharmed, and there was “no increase in radiation levels has been observed at the Natanz site.”

Other locations that came under fire included Khandab, home to a heavy water nuclear reactor, and Khoramabad, which hosts a base for ballistic missiles. The choice of these specific sites underlines the Israeli objective to disrupt what it sees as critical components of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities.

In a swift response, Iran launched approximately 100 drones aimed at Israeli territory, an Israeli military spokesperson reported. The Israeli defense system is currently engaged in efforts to intercept and neutralize these drones. This exchange indicates the high likelihood of further military confrontation between the two nations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed his nation following the strikes, making it clear that the operation could continue. “This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat,” he asserted. His statement suggests a prolonged campaign may be underway.

Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, declared a state of emergency in the immediate aftermath of the strikes. He issued a dire warning, stating, “A missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future.” This announcement heightened public alert and underscored the seriousness of the situation.

Although the United States did not take part in the military operation, it was kept in the loop by Israeli officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump had been briefed in advance of the strike. Rubio explained, “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.”

Earlier in the week, Trump had authorized the withdrawal of some American personnel from the Middle East, acknowledging the volatility of the region. He stated that the area “could be a dangerous place,” and emphasized the U.S. preference for diplomacy over military action. Trump has long advocated for a negotiated agreement over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program rather than pursuing conflict.

Despite these diplomatic overtures, Iran has expressed dissatisfaction with Washington’s stance. Tehran accused the United States of failing to take the negotiations seriously and not respecting Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

On Friday morning, Trump made a pointed statement via social media, warning Iran of the military power at Israel’s disposal. “The United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come – And they know how to use it,” Trump wrote. In a more provocative tone, he added, “Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!”

The possibility of further escalation remains uncertain. Iran and Israel have a long history of animosity, and tensions between the two have surged since the October 2023 terror attack carried out in Israel by Hamas, a Palestinian group backed by Tehran. Israel has repeatedly accused Iran of orchestrating proxy conflicts through its support of militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Late last year, both Iran and Israel exchanged direct missile strikes on each other’s territory, a rare occurrence that threatened to spiral into full-scale war but was ultimately contained. These previous flare-ups demonstrate just how close the region has come to the brink of wider conflict.

Reacting to the current crisis, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for de-escalation. He urged both nations to “show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford.” His plea reflects growing international anxiety over the potential for a broader war in an already volatile region.

Meanwhile, the economic impact of the conflict has been immediate. Global oil prices surged amid fears that a wider war could disrupt supply lines in the energy-rich Middle East. Investors, rattled by the news, rushed toward safe-haven assets. Gold prices soared to near two-month highs, while U.S. Treasury bond prices also rose as a sign of flight to safety.

At the same time, U.S. stock futures took a hit, reflecting concerns over geopolitical risk and economic stability. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were down by 580 points, highlighting the market’s sensitivity to sudden escalations in global conflict zones.

The events of Friday morning represent one of the most significant confrontations between Israel and Iran in recent history. With key figures killed, nuclear sites targeted, and retaliatory strikes underway, the potential for continued violence remains high. The world is now watching closely to see whether either side will step back from the edge—or move further into confrontation.

Greta Thunberg Deported by Israel After Gaza-Bound Aid Mission

Greta Thunberg was deported from Israel on Tuesday, just one day after Israeli forces intercepted and seized the Gaza-bound vessel she was aboard. The climate activist was traveling with a group of international campaigners on a humanitarian mission to deliver aid to Gaza, a territory facing severe shortages due to a prolonged conflict and blockade.

After her deportation, Thunberg arrived in Paris as she made her way back to Sweden. Speaking to reporters, she called for the release of the other activists who remained in detention. Reflecting on her time in custody, she described it as a “quite chaotic and uncertain” experience. However, she emphasized that what she endured was minor in comparison to the suffering of the Palestinian people. “The conditions they faced are absolutely nothing compared to what people are going through in Palestine and especially Gaza right now,” she stated.

The journey, organized by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, aimed to challenge Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza. Over 2 million people reside in the territory, many of whom rely almost entirely on external aid for survival. According to the group, the mission was intended to protest Israel’s control over aid delivery following a 20-month war in Gaza. Thunberg remarked, “We were well aware of the risks of this mission. The aim was to get to Gaza and to be able to distribute the aid.” She confirmed that despite the setback, the activists remained committed to delivering aid to Gaza in the future.

On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Thunberg, calling her “a young angry person” and suggesting she enroll in anger management classes. In response, Thunberg remarked, “I think the world need a lot more young angry women.”

Still recovering from the ordeal, Thunberg mentioned she was unsure of her exact itinerary, had not used a phone in several days, and was eager for a shower. She explained that the activists were detained in separate facilities, and many faced difficulties in securing legal representation. When asked why she accepted deportation, she responded, “Why would I want to stay in an Israeli prison more than necessary?”

Thunberg urged her supporters to take action by pressuring their governments to push not only for unrestricted humanitarian access to Gaza but also for a broader political resolution. She said, “Ask your governments to demand not only humanitarian aid being let into Gaza but most importantly an end to the occupation and an end to the systemic oppression and violence that Palestinians are facing on an everyday basis.” She added that recognition of Palestine by other nations is “the very, very, very minimum” they could do.

Thunberg had been one of 12 individuals on board the Madleen when it was intercepted by the Israeli navy about 200 kilometers (125 miles) off the Gaza coast on Monday. Israeli authorities stated that the ship was seized peacefully. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition and allied human rights organizations have condemned the operation as a breach of international law, since it occurred in international waters. However, Israel rejected these allegations, arguing that the naval blockade on Gaza is lawful and that the intercepted vessel sought to violate it.

Israeli officials dismissed the mission as more symbolic than practical, referring to the Madleen as a “selfie yacht” and claiming its aid cargo was “meager,” amounting to less than a single truckload.

According to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, three activists, including Thunberg, and a journalist were deported. The group stated it had advised some individuals to accept deportation so they could speak freely about what they had experienced. “Their detention is unlawful, politically motivated and a direct violation of international law,” the coalition said in a statement. Eight others who refused deportation remained in custody at Givon Prison in Ramle. Their legal cases were heard on Tuesday by Israeli authorities at a detention tribunal.

Lubna Tuma, an attorney with the legal rights organization Adalah, represented the detained activists. She said, “We argued today, and that also was emphasized by all the activists, that their goal is to enter humanitarian aid to Gaza, to end the famine and to end a genocide in Gaza. Any violation or any prohibition to entering the humanitarian aid to Gaza is deepening the complicity of Israel in the famine in Gaza.”

Tuma and other legal representatives pointed out that since the activists were captured in international waters and brought into Israel by force, the Israeli authorities had no legitimate legal grounds to detain or deport them.

Sabine Haddad, spokesperson for Israel’s Interior Ministry, explained that those who were deported on Tuesday had chosen to waive their right to a judicial hearing. The remaining detainees are scheduled to appear before a judge and will be held for up to 96 hours before further decisions are made regarding their deportation.

One of the detained passengers was Rima Hassan, a member of the European Parliament from France who is of Palestinian descent. Hassan had previously been barred from entering Israel due to her public criticism of its policies toward Palestinians. It was not immediately clear whether she was being deported or remained in custody.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot confirmed that one of the French nationals involved signed a deportation agreement and would be returning home Tuesday. The remaining five French activists had refused to sign, though all had received consular assistance.

In Barcelona, Spanish activist Sergio Toribio expressed outrage at the treatment he and the others received. “It is unforgivable, it is a violation of our rights. It is a pirate attack in international waters,” he told reporters upon his return.

The broader backdrop of this incident is the ongoing blockade of Gaza. Since Hamas seized control of Gaza from rival Palestinian factions in 2007, both Israel and Egypt have enforced varying degrees of blockade. Israel defends its measures as necessary to prevent Hamas from importing weapons, while critics argue that the blockade effectively punishes Gaza’s civilian population collectively.

The current war in Gaza, ongoing for 20 months, has seen Israel restrict and at times completely block aid supplies such as food, fuel, and medicine. Humanitarian experts claim these policies are driving the region toward famine. Israel, on the other hand, accuses Hamas of diverting aid for its own use.

The conflict escalated dramatically after an October 7, 2023, assault by Hamas-led militants that left about 1,200 people dead, most of them civilians, and resulted in the capture of 251 hostages. While many hostages have since been freed in ceasefire agreements or prisoner swaps, Hamas still holds 55 individuals, more than half of whom are believed to have died.

Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has resulted in over 54,000 Palestinian deaths, according to figures from the Gaza Health Ministry. While the ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, it reports that most of the casualties are women and children. In addition to the staggering death toll, vast areas of Gaza have been destroyed and approximately 90% of the territory’s residents have been displaced.

Greta Thunberg Deported by Israel After Joining Gaza-Bound Aid Flotilla

Israeli authorities deported Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg on Tuesday, just a day after her participation in a Gaza-bound aid flotilla resulted in the seizure of her ship by Israeli naval forces. Thunberg, along with other activists aboard the vessel Madleen, was aiming to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian assistance.

Speaking to reporters upon her arrival in Paris while en route to Sweden, Thunberg described the circumstances of their detention as “quite chaotic and uncertain.” However, she quickly added perspective to their experience by saying, “The conditions they faced are absolutely nothing compared to what people are going through in Palestine and especially Gaza right now.” She emphasized that the mission was intended to protest the harsh Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, a territory now struggling to support over 2 million people following 20 months of war.

According to the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the mission, the aim of the journey was to break through the blockade and deliver aid directly to Gaza. Thunberg acknowledged the risks involved, stating, “We were well aware of the risks of this mission. The aim was to get to Gaza and to be able to distribute the aid.” Despite the setback, she affirmed the activists’ commitment to continue supporting the people of Gaza, saying, “The activists would continue trying to get aid to Gaza.”

During the same week, U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Thunberg, labeling her “a young angry person” and suggesting she take anger management classes. Responding to the remark, Thunberg retorted, “I think the world need a lot more young angry women.”

Thunberg shared more details about her experience, noting she hadn’t had access to a phone for several days and was looking forward to a shower. She said the activists were held separately, with some facing difficulties in obtaining legal representation. When asked why she agreed to be deported, she replied candidly, “Why would I want to stay in an Israeli prison more than necessary?”

She also issued a plea to her supporters around the world to urge their governments not only to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Gaza but also to push for an end to what she described as the systematic oppression of the Palestinian people. “Ask your governments to demand not only humanitarian aid being let into Gaza but most importantly an end to the occupation and an end to the systemic oppression and violence that Palestinians are facing on an everyday basis,” she said. Furthermore, she added, “Recognizing Palestine is the very, very, very minimum that governments can do to help.”

The vessel Madleen, carrying Thunberg and 11 other passengers, was intercepted without incident early Monday by Israeli naval forces approximately 200 kilometers, or about 125 miles, from the Gaza coast. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, along with various rights organizations, condemned the Israeli action, asserting that intercepting the boat in international waters constituted a violation of international law. Israel dismissed the accusation, claiming the flotilla aimed to breach a lawful naval blockade imposed on Gaza and asserting its right to enforce the blockade.

Officials in Israel reportedly viewed the flotilla as more of a publicity move than a genuine humanitarian effort. They derisively referred to the vessel as the “selfie yacht” and downplayed the significance of the aid it carried, noting that it was less than what would fit in a single truck.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition confirmed that Thunberg, two other activists, and a journalist were deported. The group said it had advised some participants to accept deportation in order to speak freely about their experiences. However, eight others refused deportation and remained in detention awaiting legal proceedings. Adalah, a legal advocacy group based in Israel and representing the detained activists, said those individuals were expected to appear in court later Tuesday.

“Their detention is unlawful, politically motivated and a direct violation of international law,” the Freedom Flotilla Coalition stated. It called for the immediate release of the remaining detainees and urged authorities to permit them to complete their journey to Gaza. Lawyers representing the detainees were preparing to argue for their right to proceed.

Israeli Interior Ministry spokesperson Sabine Haddad explained that those activists deported on Tuesday had waived their right to appear before a judge. In contrast, those who opted to contest their deportation would appear in court and could be detained for up to 96 hours before further action was taken.

One of the high-profile detainees was Rima Hassan, a French Member of the European Parliament of Palestinian descent. Hassan had previously been banned from entering Israel due to her opposition to Israeli policies. It was unclear whether she would be deported or detained. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot confirmed that one French national signed an expulsion order and was to leave on Tuesday, while five others declined to do so. All of them reportedly received visits from French consular officials.

Sergio Toribio, a Spanish activist who arrived back in Barcelona, strongly condemned Israel’s actions. “It is unforgivable, it is a violation of our rights. It is a pirate attack in international waters,” he told reporters, echoing the outrage expressed by many in the international community.

The situation in Gaza remains dire. The region, controlled by the Hamas militant group since 2007, has long been under varying degrees of blockade by both Israel and Egypt. Israel insists the blockade is necessary to prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hamas, while critics argue that the policy amounts to collective punishment of the Gaza population.

Since the outbreak of war 20 months ago, Israel has imposed even stricter restrictions on aid, often blocking essential supplies such as food, fuel, and medicine. International experts warn that these measures are driving Gaza toward widespread famine. Israel, however, contends that Hamas routinely diverts aid to maintain its grip on power.

The current conflict was sparked by a violent attack on October 7, during which Hamas-led militants killed approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostages. While many of those hostages have been released in ceasefire deals or exchanges, Hamas still holds 55 individuals, with more than half believed to have died.

In response, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign in Gaza that, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, has resulted in the deaths of over 54,000 Palestinians. The ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, but reports that the majority of casualties have been women and children.

The war has also left large portions of Gaza in ruins, displacing around 90 percent of the territory’s residents. As the humanitarian crisis deepens, international pressure continues to mount on Israel to allow unimpeded delivery of aid and to seek a long-term resolution to the ongoing conflict.

Modi Congratulates Canadian PM Mark Carney, Emphasizes Strong India-Canada Partnership Ahead of G7 Summit

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently held a telephone conversation with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, during which the two leaders discussed bilateral ties and upcoming international engagements. The interaction highlighted mutual respect and a shared vision for closer cooperation between the two countries.

During the call, Prime Minister Modi extended his warm congratulations to Prime Minister Mark Carney on his recent electoral success. Modi also expressed his appreciation for the invitation to attend the G7 Summit, which is scheduled to take place later this month in Kananaskis, Canada. The invitation signals Canada’s intent to foster greater global dialogue by including key international partners like India in discussions on pressing global issues.

Both Prime Ministers acknowledged the robust people-to-people ties that have historically connected India and Canada. These strong cultural, educational, and familial connections have served as a foundation for the broader diplomatic relationship between the two nations. Recognizing this deep-rooted bond, Modi and Carney reaffirmed their commitment to advancing cooperation and strengthening bilateral relations. Their renewed emphasis on partnership was framed around shared democratic values, common global interests, and a desire to work together in the international arena.

According to a statement, both leaders pledged to engage with “renewed vigour,” underscoring the significance of mutual respect and common priorities in guiding their future collaboration. The conversation was a testament to their readiness to move past any prior tensions and to focus instead on areas of mutual benefit.

Prime Minister Modi conveyed that he is looking forward to meeting Prime Minister Carney in person at the G7 Summit. The in-person interaction is expected to further deepen the dialogue between the two leaders, especially in the context of evolving global challenges and opportunities for multilateral cooperation.

Reiterating his sentiments publicly, Prime Minister Modi also took to social media platform X to share a message about the call. In his post, Modi wrote, “Glad to receive a call from Prime Minister @MarkJCarney of Canada. Congratulated him on his recent election victory and thanked him for the invitation to the G7 Summit in Kananaskis later this month. As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigour, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the Summit.”

This message echoed the themes of friendship, cooperation, and democratic values, while highlighting the upcoming opportunity for both leaders to further their dialogue in a multilateral setting. The use of social media to convey this message also reflects the growing importance of direct communication between world leaders and their citizens.

The invitation to the G7 Summit and India’s acceptance of it signals a potentially important shift in Canada-India relations, especially following a period of diplomatic friction in recent years. While the statement from both sides focused on the positive aspects of the relationship, the broader geopolitical context suggests that both leaders are interested in stabilizing ties and moving forward constructively.

The phone call also comes at a time when global cooperation is seen as critical for addressing challenges ranging from climate change and economic recovery to geopolitical tensions and technological innovation. The G7 Summit provides a valuable platform for like-minded countries to come together to shape collective responses to these issues. India’s participation as a guest nation reflects its growing influence on the global stage and its commitment to being part of these multilateral solutions.

Canada, under Prime Minister Carney’s leadership, appears keen on engaging more deeply with major global democracies like India. The invitation to the G7 Summit can also be interpreted as a step towards reinvigorating bilateral diplomatic efforts and rebuilding trust. For India, the opportunity to engage with G7 leaders allows it to highlight its perspectives on global governance and to advocate for the interests of the Global South.

In summary, the phone conversation between Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Carney set a constructive tone for future engagements between India and Canada. Both leaders acknowledged the historic and enduring connection between their nations and reaffirmed their intent to collaborate more closely on areas of shared concern. The G7 Summit will offer a timely platform for these efforts to be further articulated and advanced.

Quoting directly from Modi’s social media post: “Glad to receive a call from Prime Minister @MarkJCarney of Canada. Congratulated him on his recent election victory and thanked him for the invitation to the G7 Summit in Kananaskis later this month. As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigour, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the Summit.”

This clear and public articulation of support for stronger India-Canada ties may mark the beginning of a more cooperative chapter in their bilateral relationship. With shared democratic ideals and mutual interests on the global stage, the renewed dialogue could pave the way for deeper strategic engagement in the months and years to come.

India’s Parliamentary Delegation in U.S. Reports Strong Global Backing Against Terrorism, Pakistan Isolated

India’s all-party parliamentary delegation currently visiting the United States has reported widespread global backing for India’s stance against terrorism, and a notable lack of sympathy for Pakistan. Congress MP and delegation leader Shashi Tharoor, speaking to journalists on Wednesday, underscored the strong international solidarity India has received during its diplomatic outreach efforts.

Tharoor explained that the purpose of their overseas visits is to present India’s perspective and build global understanding. “Our aim in every country we visit is to present India’s perspective, share our experiences from the past few weeks, and build international understanding and support,” he said during a press briefing.

He expressed satisfaction over the response the delegation has received so far. “So far, I’m pleased to report a perfect score: every single person we’ve spoken to has unequivocally condemned the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, expressed outrage and sympathy, and endorsed India’s right to defend itself. This level of understanding has been both welcome and encouraging,” Tharoor noted.

Tharoor recounted how the Pahalgam attack, which targeted innocent civilians, had abruptly interrupted a period of hope and economic growth in Kashmir. He described the incident as a cruel assault on unarmed tourists. “Kashmir was thriving. Locals were seeing real economic benefit from booming tourism,” he observed. “And then, in a shocking act of cruelty, terrorists singled out and executed unarmed vacationers—asking their religion before shooting them. It was an appalling outrage.”

He added that the country had stood united behind the government’s military reaction, which was both forceful and carefully measured. “The government made it clear each day: we strike because we’re being struck. When they stop, we stop. And after 88 hours, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations contacted India to end the exchange—and we did,” said Tharoor, indicating a clear timeline of events and India’s defensive posture.

When discussing Pakistan’s reliability and its narrative at international platforms, Tharoor was direct and critical. “Where was Osama bin Laden hiding? Who carried out the Mumbai attacks? Which Pakistani agencies are linked to terror groups listed by the UN? These facts are indisputable, and the world is aware,” he remarked, pointing to Pakistan’s controversial past in harboring and supporting terrorism.

Tharoor also addressed how the global community has reacted to India’s version of events, stating that there was no resistance or challenge to India’s account. “No one pushed back or tried to defend Pakistan. In fact, several interlocutors went out of their way to stress they had no sympathy for Pakistan’s position,” he said, suggesting that global opinion is now clearly aligned against Islamabad’s stance.

He summarized the U.S. government’s approach as fully supportive of India’s anti-terror campaign. “Total support for India’s fight against terrorism” and “complete understanding of our right to self-defense” is how he characterized the American policy tone.

Tejasvi Surya, a BJP MP and fellow member of the delegation, took a strong stance against Pakistan’s attempts to appear as a peace-loving country. Drawing on a striking analogy, Surya said, “It’s ironic to hear Pakistan talk about peace—it’s like the devil quoting scripture.” He added, “They’re promoting failed generals as field marshals while trying to manufacture heroes. They’ve lost credibility.”

Surya emphasized that India’s views have been consistently echoed and supported in all international engagements. “In every country we visited and in our meetings with U.S. senators and representatives, there has been absolutely no support for the Pakistani cause. India’s position has been unequivocally endorsed,” he noted, reinforcing the effectiveness of the delegation’s outreach.

Taranjit Singh Sandhu, India’s former Ambassador to the U.S. and a member of the delegation, underlined the larger global context of India’s fight. He stressed that India’s battle against terrorism resonates globally, especially with nations like the United States, which have also been targeted by extremist groups. “These are the same terrorists who have previously threatened the United States. India’s fight is not just its own—it’s a fight on behalf of the world,” Sandhu stated, broadening the implications of India’s security challenges.

The delegation, meant to reflect a unified national stance, comprises representatives from various political parties, demonstrating India’s cross-party consensus on combating terrorism. Among the members are Shambhavi Choudhary from Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), Sarfaraz Ahmad of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Milind Murli Deora representing Shiv Sena, Bhubaneswar Kalita and Tejasvi Surya from the BJP, and GM Harish Balayogi of the Telugu Desam Party, part of the ruling National Democratic Alliance.

This multi-party composition underscores that the issue of terrorism transcends political divides in India. The delegation’s efforts to represent India’s position to the world also suggest a well-orchestrated move by the government to ensure unity on the global stage. By including opposition and regional party members, the message being sent abroad is that India speaks with one voice on matters of national security and international justice.

As the delegation continues its engagements in the United States, the message is clear: India is no longer alone in its struggle against cross-border terrorism. The Pahalgam attack may have been a tragic reminder of the threats still facing the country, but it has also galvanized international support and revealed Pakistan’s increasing diplomatic isolation. The delegation’s mission is a critical one—not just to inform and seek solidarity, but to cement global partnerships in the ongoing battle against extremism.

With the United States and other nations standing firmly behind India, this outreach signals a shift in global perception. Where once the narrative may have been muddled, now it appears to be firmly focused on identifying the perpetrators of terror and standing with the victims. As Tharoor, Surya, and Sandhu continue to drive this point home abroad, India’s global diplomacy on counterterrorism seems to be entering a new and more assertive phase.

Pakistan to Chair UN Taliban Sanctions Committee in 2025 Amid Broader Security Council Roles

Pakistan has been designated to lead the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee in 2025. This committee plays a crucial role in enforcing a range of international sanctions, such as asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes on individuals and entities affiliated with the Taliban who are perceived to be threatening the peace and security in Afghanistan.

The appointment places Pakistan at the center of a sensitive international mechanism targeting Taliban-related threats, underlining its renewed engagement in global counter-terrorism frameworks. Guyana and Russia will serve as vice-chairs of the same committee alongside Pakistan.

In addition to chairing the Taliban Sanctions Committee, Pakistan is also set to take on a vice-chair role in the United Nations’ 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee. This committee is responsible for overseeing measures adopted under Security Council Resolution 1373, which mandates member states to prevent and suppress terrorism and its financing. Algeria will chair the committee, while France and Russia will also serve as vice-chairs, highlighting the multilateral nature of leadership across the body.

Pakistan’s responsibilities within the Security Council will not end there. It will also co-chair two informal working groups: one focused on Documentation and Procedural Questions, and the other addressing General Sanctions Issues. These working groups play a critical function in guiding how Security Council sanctions processes are documented, structured, and refined over time.

Meanwhile, Denmark has been appointed to lead the 1267 Sanctions Committee, which targets ISIL and Al-Qaida entities. Russia and Sierra Leone will assist Denmark as vice-chairs in this committee. The 1267 Committee is another high-profile sanctions body aimed at curbing global terrorism through enforcement of sanctions on extremist groups beyond the Afghan context.

These UN sanctions committees consist of all 15 members of the Security Council, including both permanent and non-permanent members. Importantly, their decisions are reached by consensus, requiring negotiation and cooperation among all member states regardless of political alignment.

Pakistan is currently serving as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 2025–26 term. This marks a return to the UNSC for the country and positions it at the heart of deliberations on international peace and security over the next two years.

Pakistan’s elevation to these roles comes in a context shaped by past tensions, especially with neighboring India, over the issue of counter-terrorism. India previously chaired the Counter-Terrorism Committee during its own non-permanent membership term from 2021 to 2022. During that period, India often expressed concern over Pakistan’s record on terrorism, emphasizing what it described as Islamabad’s harboring of numerous UN-designated terrorists.

India has particularly drawn attention to the case of Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaida, who was located and killed in 2011 by U.S. forces in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. Referring to this, India has regularly questioned Pakistan’s credibility on counter-terrorism efforts and its commitment to tackling safe havens for terrorists.

Nonetheless, Pakistan’s new leadership roles within the UNSC structure reflect broader international acknowledgment of its involvement in global security dialogues and its ability to work within multilateral institutions. As chair and co-chair of key sanctions and procedural bodies, Pakistan will now play a direct role in shaping the enforcement of international norms and decisions targeting terrorism.

The current composition of the Security Council includes five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—along with ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. The present group of non-permanent members comprises Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia.

In recent UNSC elections held on Tuesday, five countries were elected as new non-permanent members for the 2026–2027 term. These are Bahrain, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Latvia, and Colombia. These states will replace outgoing members whose terms will expire at the end of 2025, joining the rotating group of ten non-permanent members and thereby influencing Security Council deliberations from 2026 onward.

The appointment of Pakistan to lead the Taliban Sanctions Committee comes at a critical juncture for Afghanistan. The situation in the country remains volatile following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 after the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces. The 1988 Committee, named after the resolution that established it, is tasked with ensuring that individuals and groups linked to the Taliban do not threaten the peace process or engage in activities that destabilize the region.

The work of this committee involves constant monitoring, coordination with UN missions and member states, and updating lists of designated individuals and entities. It also collaborates with experts to assess the impact and effectiveness of sanctions and to propose recommendations for their improvement.

Given Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan and its long-standing involvement in regional security matters, its appointment to lead this committee could prove significant for both policy direction and implementation. Pakistan’s leadership will be closely scrutinized by the international community, particularly by states that have raised concerns about its historical ties with elements of the Taliban.

Pakistan’s role in the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee will also be watched carefully. The committee promotes national, regional, and international efforts to combat terrorism by monitoring the implementation of counter-terrorism measures. It reviews member states’ legal and institutional frameworks and encourages information-sharing and cooperation to prevent and respond to terrorist threats.

By assuming vice-chair responsibilities in this committee, Pakistan will have a hand in guiding these evaluations and recommendations—potentially influencing how the international community assesses compliance and gaps in global counter-terrorism efforts.

Similarly, its participation in the informal working groups on documentation and sanctions procedures will enable Pakistan to shape the administrative and technical dimensions of the Security Council’s sanctions regime. These include how evidence is compiled, how listing and delisting procedures function, and how compliance is monitored across various regions and political environments.

In conclusion, Pakistan’s multiple appointments within the United Nations Security Council structure for 2025 mark a notable expansion of its diplomatic role at the global level. While questions about its past record remain part of the international conversation, its leadership in key committees dealing with the Taliban, terrorism, and sanctions procedures will place it at the heart of the UN’s efforts to address some of the world’s most urgent security challenges.

Ukraine’s Daring Drone Strike Deals Historic Blow to Russia’s Strategic Bomber Fleet

In what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called an operation “for the history books,” Ukraine launched one of its most ambitious and impactful military offensives of the war. On Sunday, in a matter of hours, nearly a third of Moscow’s strategic bomber fleet was either destroyed or severely damaged. The surprise assault was executed with relatively inexpensive drones that managed to slip deep into Russian territory. Ukrainian officials celebrated the operation as a resounding success.

This elaborate mission, codenamed “Spiderweb,” was spearheaded by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and was over 18 months in the making. It was personally supervised by President Zelenskyy. The operation was launched at a critical moment in the conflict, now in its third year, as diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire have failed to produce results and as Russia continues to bombard Ukraine with an unprecedented volume of missile and drone strikes.

Sunday’s operation highlights the broader wartime strategy that Ukraine has pursued: innovation and resourcefulness in the face of being outgunned and outnumbered. Heavily reliant on support from Western allies, Ukrainian defense planners have frequently turned to asymmetrical tactics to weaken Russian forces. These methods often include stealth and creativity, allowing Ukraine to punch above its weight.

According to Kyiv, four Russian military airfields were targeted in the strike. President Zelenskyy revealed that a total of 117 drones were deployed in the multi-layered attack, which inflicted major damage on 34% of Russia’s air missile carrier fleet.

The mission’s complexity was staggering. Zelenskyy disclosed that it was coordinated from a location next to an office of Russia’s powerful Federal Security Service (FSB), though he did not specify exactly where this took place. Ukrainian operatives covertly smuggled FPV (first-person view) drones into Russian territory. These drones were transported in wooden containers and moved by truck to areas near the targeted airfields.

Once positioned, the drones took flight from the containers to launch their strikes on Russia’s strategic bombers. Videos shared on Russian social media on the day of the attack showed drones rising from inside the wooden crates. By the time the assault ended, Ukraine’s security service estimated that over 40 Russian aircraft were either destroyed or heavily damaged, causing approximately $7 billion in losses.

One of the most significant targets hit was the Belaya air base, located in the Irkutsk region of Siberia, more than 4,000 kilometers—or about 2,500 miles—from Ukraine. The sheer distance underscores the depth of Ukrainian penetration and the operational reach of their drones.

Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed that strikes had indeed occurred, noting that aircraft were damaged and fires broke out at air bases in both the Irkutsk and Murmansk regions. It also said additional drone attacks were thwarted in other regions, including Amur in the Russian Far East and the western locales of Ivanovo and Ryazan.

However, as is often the case in wartime, there has been no way to independently verify the extent of the damage reported by either side.

The primary targets of this operation were strategic aircraft known for their roles in bombing Ukraine. The SBU stated that the strike destroyed several high-value military assets, including the A-50 radar aircraft, as well as the Tu-95 and Tu-22M long-range bombers. These aircraft have been integral to Russia’s bombing campaign against Ukraine. While the Tu-95 and Tu-22M have previously launched missiles at Ukrainian cities, the A-50 plays a critical role in identifying targets, detecting air defenses, and guiding missiles.

The destruction of these planes marks a significant setback for Russia’s ability to maintain its missile assault operations. Ukraine has long sought to reduce Moscow’s aerial strike capabilities, which pose a major threat to civilians and infrastructure alike.

The timing of the drone assault was particularly notable. It came just as Russia had launched a record 472 drones toward Ukraine, another attempt to overwhelm Ukraine’s limited air defense supplies, cripple its arms manufacturing, and lower public morale. These attacks have not only strained Ukraine’s defensive systems but have also resulted in civilian casualties and destruction of non-military targets.

In contrast, Ukraine’s successful operation dealt a psychological and strategic blow to Russia while also lifting the spirits of Ukrainians. The morale boost is significant at a time when peace talks have shown little progress and when Ukrainians are bracing for more hardship.

The drone strike took place a day before a new round of direct peace negotiations commenced in Istanbul on Monday. It served as both a show of Ukrainian capability and a warning to Moscow.

“The enemy thought it could bomb Ukraine and kill Ukrainians with impunity and without end. But that is not the case,” said Vasyl Maliuk, head of Ukraine’s Security Service, on Monday. “We will respond to Russian terror and destroy the enemy everywhere — at sea, in the air, and on land.”

“And if necessary, we’ll get them from underground too,” he added, emphasizing Ukraine’s commitment to continue striking back regardless of the battlefield.

This latest operation also reinforces a pattern of Ukraine employing the element of surprise to strike high-value targets far behind enemy lines. Despite facing numerous challenges on the frontlines, Kyiv has consistently found ways to disrupt Russian operations in unexpected ways.

Sunday’s offensive may go down as the boldest action yet in this category. But it is by no means the first.

In April 2022, Ukraine shocked the world by sinking the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, using two of its domestically produced Neptune anti-ship missiles. The destruction of the Moskva was a major symbolic and strategic victory early in the war.

Later that year, in October 2022, Ukraine struck the Kerch Bridge connecting Russia with Crimea, a key logistical and symbolic link for Moscow. The bridge was hit again in July 2023, further demonstrating Ukraine’s ability to attack far beyond the immediate warfront.

Sunday’s drone operation represents the continuation—and escalation—of Ukraine’s campaign to target strategic Russian military assets deep within its territory. It not only showcases Ukraine’s growing capabilities in unmanned warfare but also exposes vulnerabilities in Russia’s homeland defense systems.

With no end to the conflict in sight and peace negotiations still yielding little progress, Sunday’s attack may well become a defining moment in a war where creativity, precision, and resilience have become Ukraine’s most potent weapons.

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s Broad Use of Emergency Law to Impose Global Tariffs

In a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, a federal court ruled Wednesday that he cannot rely on an emergency law to unilaterally impose tariffs on countries across the globe. The decision blocks a series of tariff orders issued since February that had unsettled financial markets.

The ruling, delivered by a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade, determined that Congress never gave Trump unrestricted authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a statute central to his administration’s legal defense.

“An unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,” the court stated in its unsigned opinion. The judges emphasized that unchecked executive power in trade matters would violate constitutional principles.

“Regardless of whether the court views the President’s actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional,” the opinion continued.

Trump’s legal team swiftly appealed the ruling on Wednesday evening, signaling an ongoing battle over executive authority in economic policymaking.

The IEEPA allows the president to implement economic sanctions in response to national emergencies involving “unusual and extraordinary threats.” Traditionally used to freeze foreign assets and restrict financial transactions, the law was designed to provide the executive branch tools to respond to crises such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and nuclear proliferation.

Trump, however, tried to stretch the scope of the law to justify imposing extensive tariffs. He cited persistent trade deficits and the dangers posed by international drug cartels as reasons to declare a national emergency and take sweeping trade actions.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai in response to the ruling. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute,” Desai added. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”

Wednesday’s court decision specifically halts the enforcement of Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which included a blanket 10 percent duty on all imports and higher, “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries. The ruling also nullifies earlier tariffs directed at major U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, and China. While some of those tariffs had already been postponed or adjusted due to negative market reactions—including stock declines and rising Treasury yields—the court’s ruling effectively invalidates them.

The judges provided the administration with a 10-day window to issue any administrative directives required to implement the decision.

The panel comprised Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Trump; Judge Jane Restani, appointed by President Ronald Reagan; and Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by President Barack Obama. Despite their different political backgrounds, all three judges agreed that the president had exceeded his legal authority.

The ruling stems from two lawsuits that form part of a broader legal offensive against Trump’s use of tariffs. One case was brought by a coalition of small businesses, primarily targeting the “Liberation Day” tariffs. The other lawsuit was led by a group of Democratic attorneys general, with Oregon at the forefront, and challenged a broader collection of tariff measures enacted under the IEEPA.

Before reaching its conclusion on the scope of the IEEPA, the court first dismissed a threshold argument from the Trump administration, which contended that the president’s trade actions were political decisions outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

“This reliance on the political question doctrine is misplaced,” the panel wrote in its unanimous opinion, asserting that the judiciary has the authority to interpret the limits of statutory powers granted to the executive.

The decision marks another chapter in the continuing debate over presidential powers in economic and trade policy. While Congress has gradually ceded significant authority to the executive branch in the realm of international commerce over the decades, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder that there are still legal boundaries that cannot be crossed, even during a declared emergency.

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs has been a cornerstone of his “America First” agenda. His administration has argued that the country’s trade deficits are not merely economic issues but also national security threats. By framing trade imbalances and foreign supply chain dependencies as emergencies under the IEEPA, Trump sought to gain leverage over trading partners and bypass traditional congressional approval processes.

Critics, however, have long argued that using the IEEPA to justify sweeping trade measures undermines both the intent of the law and the constitutional balance of powers. Legal experts have warned that accepting such an interpretation would set a dangerous precedent by granting the president virtually unchecked control over international trade policy.

Wednesday’s ruling aligns with those concerns, offering a rebuke of efforts to expand presidential power in a way that bypasses legislative oversight. The court’s insistence that any delegation of power must be constrained by clear statutory limits echoes previous judicial decisions that have placed constitutional checks on the executive.

Though the Trump administration’s appeal could eventually lead the case to the Supreme Court, the immediate effect of the ruling is to block the implementation of tariffs that had threatened to escalate tensions with key allies and further destabilize financial markets.

The ruling also has implications for future presidents who might seek to invoke emergency laws for economic interventions. By reaffirming that even in times of crisis the president cannot exceed the powers granted by Congress, the decision underscores the enduring importance of constitutional safeguards in policymaking.

As the legal process continues, the debate over how far presidential powers should extend in the realm of trade and national emergencies is likely to remain a contentious issue. While Trump’s appeal may challenge the court’s interpretation of the IEEPA, for now, the ruling stands as a decisive limitation on the executive branch’s authority to wield emergency powers for sweeping economic actions.

With 10 days to comply, the Trump administration faces both a legal and political challenge in adjusting its trade policies without the broad emergency powers it sought to claim. The outcome of the appeal process will likely shape not only Trump’s legacy on trade but also the broader contours of executive power in future administrations.

King Charles III Begins Canadian Visit Amid Sovereignty Tensions with the U.S.

King Charles III and Queen Camilla have commenced a significant two-day visit to Canada, a trip widely interpreted as a demonstration of support for Canadian sovereignty during a time of mounting pressure from the United States. The visit comes in the wake of provocative remarks by  U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to absorb Canada as the 51st American state.

The royal couple arrived in Ottawa, Canada’s capital, where they were received with ceremonial honors by prominent Canadian leaders. Among those welcoming the monarch was the country’s recently elected prime minister, Mark Carney, and Governor General Mary Simon, the first indigenous person to hold that role and the official representative of the British monarch in Canada.

Carney, who assumed leadership in April after running on a platform that strongly opposed Trump’s foreign policy, extended the invitation to King Charles shortly after becoming head of the Liberal Party. At that time, Trump had heightened tensions by levying tariffs on Canadian goods and making inflammatory suggestions about annexing the country.

In a formal statement released ahead of the royal visit, Prime Minister Carney emphasized the symbolic importance of the king’s presence. “It speaks to our enduring tradition and friendship, to the vitality of our constitutional monarchy and our distinct identity, and to the historic ties that crises only fortify,” said Carney, reflecting on the significance of the moment.

During the royal stay, Carney and the king are scheduled to hold a private meeting. While the exact content of their discussions remains undisclosed, it is widely expected that matters concerning national unity, sovereignty, and diplomatic resilience in the face of U.S. pressure will be at the forefront.

One of the key highlights of the royal tour will take place on Tuesday, when King Charles delivers the speech from the throne to inaugurate a new session of the Canadian Parliament. This rare event will mark the first time a reigning monarch has performed this ceremonial duty in Canada since 1977, when Queen Elizabeth II addressed the Senate during her reign.

Though largely symbolic, the speech holds deep political resonance. Canada operates as a constitutional monarchy, with the king serving as its official head of state. This stands in marked contrast to the republican system of governance in the United States. The presence of the monarch in a legislative setting underscores the country’s unique political structure and reaffirms its ties to the British Crown at a time when questions of sovereignty have become especially sensitive.

The speech from the throne will outline the government’s future plans and policy priorities. While King Charles will read the address, the contents are being drafted by Prime Minister Carney’s office. The speech is expected to make a strong case for defending Canada’s autonomy and independence, echoing the sentiments Carney expressed during his recent election campaign.

This journey marks King Charles’ first official visit to Canada since he ascended to the throne in 2023. A previously planned trip was cancelled last year due to the king’s cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, Charles has maintained a longstanding affection for Canada and its citizens. During a visit in May 2022, he praised the country warmly, describing Canadians as “outward-looking, big-hearted people.”

With the backdrop of ongoing tensions between Ottawa and Washington, the timing of the king’s visit could not be more relevant. Trump’s comments about annexing Canada have drawn international criticism and alarmed many Canadians, leading to a surge in public support for reaffirming the country’s distinct identity and democratic structure. In this context, the royal visit is not merely a ceremonial gesture but a potent symbol of the enduring relationship between Canada and the British monarchy.

Carney’s political rise has also coincided with a renewed national conversation about Canada’s place on the global stage and its relationship with larger powers like the United States. Since taking office, Carney has sought to define his leadership around principles of national integrity, self-determination, and a recommitment to Canada’s foundational institutions — values that many see as being reinforced by the presence of the monarch.

For his part, King Charles has shown an appreciation for the complexities of Canadian society, particularly its cultural diversity and evolving role in the international community. His prior remarks and current itinerary suggest that his engagement during this visit will be both ceremonial and deeply personal.

As part of the visit, additional events and public appearances are planned, although exact details have not been disclosed. Security is expected to be tight, and public interest high, as Canadians observe the rare occasion of a monarch addressing their Parliament.

Observers note that the speech from the throne will serve not just as a formal opening of Parliament but also as a reaffirmation of Canada’s political identity at a time of external threats. While Charles will deliver the speech, it is effectively a message from the Canadian government — and its newly elected leader — to both its own citizens and to the world.

For many Canadians, the visit is a reassurance of continuity in uncertain times. The symbolic presence of the monarch serves as a counterweight to the political turbulence generated by Trump’s remarks and policy decisions. It’s a reminder that Canada’s democratic institutions, traditions, and alliances remain strong.

In addition to political and ceremonial functions, the visit is likely to touch upon cultural themes that reflect King Charles’ known interests, such as environmental conservation, indigenous rights, and community engagement. While these themes are not the main focus of this short trip, they have been recurring elements in the king’s previous tours and public commentary.

The participation of Governor General Mary Simon is also being seen as a reflection of Canada’s ongoing efforts to recognize and include indigenous voices at the highest levels of government. Her role in receiving the monarch adds a further layer of historical significance to the visit, marking a convergence of tradition and progress in Canadian society.

As King Charles continues his Canadian tour, many are watching closely not just for the pomp and circumstance, but for the deeper messages conveyed through his presence and his words. With a speech from the throne soon to be delivered, and private talks scheduled with key Canadian leaders, this visit may prove to be a defining moment in the ongoing narrative of Canadian sovereignty and its relationship with both the Crown and its powerful neighbor to the south.

In a period marked by political tension and public uncertainty, the king’s visit is being received as both a diplomatic gesture and a unifying signal. As Prime Minister Carney put it, “It speaks to our enduring tradition and friendship, to the vitality of our constitutional monarchy and our distinct identity, and to the historic ties that crises only fortify.”

American Hindu Jewish Congress Backs Broader Abraham Accords for Regional Stability and Religious Tolerance

The American Hindu Jewish Congress (AHJC), an interfaith advocacy organization based in the United States, has voiced strong support for the continued growth of the Abraham Accords, emphasizing its commitment to religious harmony and lasting peace in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

Originally signed on September 15, 2020, during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, the Abraham Accords marked a significant diplomatic breakthrough by normalizing relations between Israel and three Arab nations: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. These agreements were hailed as historic steps toward improving regional diplomacy and fostering economic cooperation between adversaries.

Looking forward, reports suggest that Trump’s foreign policy strategy in a potential second term is centered on broadening the scope of the Abraham Accords. The countries being considered for inclusion reportedly include Saudi Arabia, Syria, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. If realized, this expansion would deepen the regional framework established by the initial agreements, drawing in nations with diverse geopolitical interests and relationships with Israel.

This week, Arthur Kapoor, the chairman of the AHJC, participated in a high-level meeting of the Abraham Accords Prosperity Group held in Washington, D.C. The event brought together an influential group of diplomats, lawmakers, and business leaders to discuss the future direction of the accords following Trump’s recent diplomatic trip to the region. Discussions focused on how to enhance the effectiveness and longevity of the agreements through strengthened political and economic collaboration.

Kapoor expressed optimism after witnessing strong bipartisan backing from key U.S. lawmakers for the ongoing expansion and success of the Accords. “I was impressed by Senator Joni Ernst and Senator Kristen Gillibrand’s commitment to ensuring the success of the Accords,” Kapoor stated, recognizing the rare display of unity across party lines when it comes to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East.

In his remarks, Kapoor also underlined the importance of matching diplomatic goodwill with tangible outcomes that promote growth and prosperity. “The Ambassadors of Morocco and Bahrain shared their hopeful vision as among the Accords’ early partners. But business success will require commensurate economic and infrastructure development. We are looking forward to exploring opportunities and assisting in the regional progress,” he noted.

The meeting attracted a notable list of participants who play central roles in shaping regional diplomacy. Among the attendees were Moroccan Ambassador Youseff Amrani, Bahraini Ambassador Shaikh Abdulla Al Khalifa, UK envoy Sir Liam Fox, and U.S. Senators Joni Ernst of Iowa and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Their involvement underscored the wide international interest in maintaining momentum behind the Abraham Accords and in ensuring that they continue to deliver long-term benefits.

The public support voiced by the AHJC comes during a period of intensified diplomatic outreach and negotiations. Recently, Trump held a meeting in Riyadh with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to deliberate on Syria’s potential involvement in the Abraham Accords. In a major policy shift, Trump also declared the removal of U.S. sanctions on Syria—a move designed to ease the country’s reintegration into the international economic system and increase its openness to broader regional cooperation.

In addition to Syria, the potential inclusion of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan is currently under discussion. Both nations already maintain diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, and their participation in the Abraham Accords could provide a broader base for collaboration throughout Central Asia. Their involvement would also mark a further extension of the original framework, which initially focused on Arab-Israeli rapprochement.

Supporters of the expansion believe that welcoming countries such as Syria, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan into the Accords could boost regional cohesion and allow for greater collaboration on trade, infrastructure, energy, and cultural exchange. By linking Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries through a shared commitment to coexistence and mutual growth, the Abraham Accords could evolve from a diplomatic milestone into a lasting alliance for peace and development.

The AHJC’s endorsement is especially significant given its mission to promote interfaith dialogue and shared values between diverse religious communities. The organization views the Abraham Accords as not merely a geopolitical agreement but as a platform for advancing ideals of religious tolerance and unity among peoples of different backgrounds. In this context, Kapoor and his colleagues believe that continued investment—both economic and diplomatic—is crucial to ensuring the long-term viability of the initiative.

In his remarks at the meeting, Kapoor emphasized that while political agreements are essential, sustained progress depends on delivering results that improve people’s lives across the region. As more countries show interest in joining the Accords, the focus will need to shift increasingly toward infrastructure development, investment in technology, and educational exchanges that can cement bonds of trust and partnership.

The Abraham Accords Prosperity Group, which hosted the meeting, plays a key role in translating the diplomatic agreements into actionable business and investment opportunities. By bringing together stakeholders from government and the private sector, the group seeks to identify practical ways to boost cross-border collaboration and support economic modernization in participating countries.

While critics remain skeptical about the prospects of some nations joining the Accords, especially given long-standing rivalries and political complexities, supporters argue that expanding the framework could bring a new era of regional diplomacy. They believe that these efforts can help shift the focus away from decades of hostility and toward mutual benefit and economic integration.

The AHJC’s vocal support for this next phase of the Abraham Accords reflects a growing recognition among global interfaith leaders that peace and religious coexistence are not just possible, but achievable through consistent diplomatic engagement and shared economic goals.

As diplomatic efforts continue and new countries consider joining the fold, organizations like the AHJC are expected to play an increasingly prominent role in promoting the values of tolerance and unity. Their involvement may also help bridge divides between religious communities that have historically been at odds, setting an example for broader international cooperation rooted in mutual respect.

With the Abraham Accords entering a new phase of potential expansion, the commitment of both political leaders and civil society groups will be crucial. As Arthur Kapoor and the AHJC made clear, real success will require not just symbolic gestures but the creation of lasting economic and social partnerships that benefit people across the region. Their message is clear: progress must be sustained by both policy and action.

Trump Says India Offers to Drop Tariffs Amid Ongoing Trade Talks

President Donald Trump has revealed that India has proposed eliminating tariffs on American goods as part of ongoing trade discussions aimed at preventing increased import taxes. This announcement came during an event with business leaders in Qatar, where Trump shared insights into the latest developments in U.S.-India trade relations.

Speaking at the event on Thursday, Trump stated, “They have offered us a deal where basically they are willing to literally charge us no tariff.” While he did not provide any additional details about India’s proposal, the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry has yet to respond to requests for clarification.

India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar later commented on the matter, emphasizing that the talks are still underway. He advised against drawing conclusions until an equitable agreement is reached, saying that “any judgment on it would be premature” until a “mutually beneficial” deal is finalized, according to local reports.

The backdrop to these developments includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the White House in February, which laid the groundwork for a series of trade negotiations between the two nations. India was among the earliest countries to engage in trade talks with the Trump administration following that visit. Both sides had agreed to complete the first phase of a bilateral trade agreement by the fall. To further advance these discussions, India’s trade minister is scheduled to meet with U.S. officials between May 17 and 20.

Trump’s recent comments follow escalating tensions after India threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs in response to the United States increasing duties on steel and aluminum. This suggested a firmer stance by India as it continues negotiations with Washington. Despite the friction, sources familiar with the discussions have confirmed that the trade talks are progressing on schedule.

In New Delhi, analysts interpreted Trump’s remarks in two different ways. Some saw them as a signal that a deal is nearing completion, while others considered it a negotiation tactic aimed at exerting pressure on Indian officials.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Institute in New Delhi, commented, “An India–US trade deal may be on the cards.” He also stressed the importance of fairness in the agreement, stating, “But the deal must ensure strict reciprocity, with both sides eliminating tariffs equally.”

Following Trump’s remarks, the market response in India was relatively calm. The Indian rupee regained some of its losses, and the benchmark NSE Nifty 50 index rose by 1.7% by 2 p.m. local time.

Trump has been vocal about the trade imbalance between India and the U.S. since returning to the White House, describing it as heavily tilted in India’s favor. Last year, the trade gap stood at approximately $47 billion. Trump has repeatedly criticized India for its high tariffs, arguing that they harm American businesses. He has threatened to introduce “reciprocal” tariffs of 26% on Indian goods, although those proposed tariffs have been temporarily postponed until early July.

India, in an effort to address Trump’s concerns, has implemented a series of policy changes. These include revising its tariff structure to lower import duties on key American products such as bourbon whiskey and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. These measures aim to demonstrate India’s willingness to reach a compromise.

Furthermore, Bloomberg News recently reported that New Delhi has suggested applying zero tariffs on selected goods, including auto components and pharmaceuticals. This would apply to a limited volume of imports and would be reciprocated by the United States.

Despite the cordial relationship between Trump and Modi, which has often been highlighted in public appearances and diplomatic meetings, some tensions have emerged. Indian officials have expressed irritation at Trump’s claim that he used trade as leverage to facilitate a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following a four-day military confrontation. Indian authorities have disputed that assertion, indicating that trade and diplomacy should be treated separately.

In another development that could add complexity to the ongoing trade talks, Trump disclosed that he had spoken with Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook. During their conversation, Trump said he urged Cook not to expand Apple’s manufacturing operations in India.

“I said I don’t want you building in India,” Trump recounted about his conversation with the Apple chief. He further added, “India can take care of themselves, they are doing very well.”

According to Trump, the outcome of this exchange was Apple’s decision to increase its production capacity within the United States. “Apple will be upping their production in the United States,” he said.

These remarks suggest that Trump remains committed to reshoring manufacturing to the U.S., even as he attempts to smooth trade relations with India. The administration appears focused on both correcting the trade deficit and strengthening domestic industry, even if it means discouraging American companies from investing abroad.

India, on the other hand, has been navigating a delicate balance. It is attempting to satisfy American demands without appearing to capitulate too easily, especially as it seeks to maintain economic independence and strategic autonomy. The negotiations now hinge on whether the two sides can reach a consensus that benefits both economies without provoking further political or economic strain.

While no formal deal has been announced yet, signs of potential compromise are emerging. India’s willingness to adjust its tariff policies and the United States’ decision to delay retaliatory measures hint that both nations are interested in resolving the trade impasse amicably. However, analysts caution that much depends on the specifics of any final agreement.

Srivastava’s call for strict reciprocity underscores a key concern for Indian negotiators: ensuring that the United States does not gain disproportionately from the deal. Equal concessions on both sides will be necessary to ensure domestic support and long-term viability of any trade pact.

With the Indian trade minister set to visit the U.S. soon, the next few weeks could prove decisive in determining whether the two countries can move beyond threats and tariff hikes to forge a stable economic partnership. Until then, both sides are expected to continue their careful maneuvering, mindful of both political optics and economic realities.

The outcome of these talks will not only affect bilateral trade but could also shape broader geopolitical alignments, especially as the U.S. and India look to counterbalance other major global players. A successful trade deal would mark a significant milestone in the evolving relationship between the world’s largest and oldest democracies.

The Five Happiest Countries in the World in 2025: What Makes Them Smile More Than the Rest

Have you ever wondered where people genuinely start their day with a smile instead of relying on caffeine to survive the morning? While many face the daily grind of traffic snarls and awkward elevator conversations, certain countries seem to live in a state of ongoing contentment. While scientists have yet to determine if it’s due to something in the water, favorable genetics, or simply the wisdom of disconnecting from work emails after 6 PM, these nations have discovered what the rest of us are still trying to figure out: the formula for happiness.

But how are the happiest countries actually ranked? After all, happiness is subjective and varies greatly from person to person. According to William Russell, several factors are considered in calculating a nation’s happiness. These include access to international health insurance, insights from the World Happiness Report 2024, Numbeo’s Quality of Life Index, the US News Quality of Life Index, CEOWORLD Magazine’s Quality of Life Report, and the Happy City Index developed by the Institute for Quality of Life. In addition, GDP per capita and average life expectancy also play a major role. Using a weighted average of all these elements, the happiest countries in the world for 2025 were determined.

Switzerland sits at the top of this list.

  1. Switzerland

The happiest city in Switzerland is Zurich, which boasts a Quality of Life Index of 204 and an Average Life Evaluation score of 7.060. Previously recognized as the best country to live in and among the top ten healthiest countries, Switzerland remains a beacon of well-being.

The average annual salary in Switzerland is an impressive US$79,204 as of 2023, placing the country in the top five globally for income. While these high wages come with a steep cost of living—rents are nearly twice that of the UK, and everyday expenses are 64% higher—residents are surrounded by awe-inspiring natural beauty. From the Matterhorn to Lake Lucerne, many Swiss spend their free time hiking, skiing, and paragliding.

Working conditions in Switzerland are also favorable. Employees benefit from a maximum workweek of 45 to 50 hours, a minimum of four weeks of vacation, and a 25% overtime pay premium.

Swiss society values honesty, diligence, and respect. Interactions are generally formal, with handshakes as the norm. Their policy of neutrality in global affairs mirrors a deep cultural emphasis on peace and security.

  1. Australia

Brisbane takes the title of the happiest city in Australia, with a Quality of Life Index of 185.5 and an Average Life Evaluation of 7.057. The country ranks highly in all happiness metrics, from life satisfaction to quality of life. It was previously named the best place for expats, the seventh healthiest, and the ninth best country for work.

The average Australian earns around US$68,000 annually. Nearly 90% of its 27 million people reside in urban areas. Although the cost of living is approximately 4% higher than in the UK, Australia offers a wealth of recreational activities, from surfing at Bondi Beach to exploring the vast Outback.

The workforce is protected under the Fair Work Act 2009, which stipulates a 38-hour workweek, four weeks of paid leave, and a minimum wage of AUS$23.23 per hour. A notable 2024 amendment introduced the “right to disconnect,” ensuring workers are not obligated to respond to work-related communications after hours.

Australian culture is a fusion of Western traditions with both indigenous and immigrant influences. It emphasizes liberty, fairness, and respect, often expressed through good manners and an egalitarian spirit. As Australians like to say, they “work hard and play hard,” enjoying leisure time with barbecues, music, and drinks.

  1. Sweden

In Sweden, Gothenburg is the happiest city, with a Quality of Life Index of 186.7 and an Average Life Evaluation of 7.344. Although it dropped one spot from the previous year, Sweden remains a model of mental well-being, consistently ranked as one of the least stressed and healthiest countries.

Swedish life is guided by the concept of “Lagom,” meaning “just the right amount,” encouraging balance in all aspects. The country provides universal healthcare, leading gender equality, and a strong welfare system. This support coexists with a thriving private sector.

Swedish workplaces are some of the most productive globally. Employer-employee relationships are collaborative, and any disputes are often mediated through trade unions. Average income is about US$38,310, and income tax ranges from 32% to 45%, funding healthcare, education, and pensions.

Swedish culture is egalitarian and inclusive. Regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or religion, fairness is upheld. Their calm, trusting nature is embodied in the national tradition of “Fika,” where coworkers take coffee breaks together to recharge and connect.

  1. Norway

Ålesund leads as the happiest city in Norway, with a Quality of Life Index of 189 and an Average Life Evaluation of 7.302. Norway lives up to its tourist slogan “Find your Happy Place,” continually appearing among the top happy countries due to its wealth, social structure, and quality of life.

Norway has strategically used its oil wealth to support society since the 1960s. It boasts one of the smallest income inequality gaps, high public spending, and a GDP per capita among the highest in the world. The average salary is US$63,900, though the cost of living is 18% above the UK’s.

Norwegian workers are among the most productive globally, generating over US$119 per hour worked. Work is capped at 37.5 hours weekly, with at least one break every 5.5 hours and a minimum of 25 vacation days each year.

Norwegian values include equality, humility, and social cooperation. “Dugnad” is the principle of collective effort toward shared goals. “Janteloven,” or the unwritten cultural code, promotes modesty and social unity over individualism.

  1. The Netherlands

Amsterdam is the Netherlands’ happiest city, featuring a Quality of Life Index of 207.5 and an Average Life Evaluation of 7.319. The Dutch have climbed the happiness rankings thanks to improvements in work-life balance, social support, and quality of life.

Though small in size, the Netherlands is a heavyweight in European politics, finance, and law. The cost of living is about 3% higher than in the UK, but the country compensates with clean cities and an efficient public transport network.

Dutch life emphasizes harmony, outdoor activity, and continuous learning. The average salary is US$46,000, with higher taxes funding essential services like healthcare and education. Its economy thrives in services and technology, with strong ties to Germany and France.

The Dutch uphold constitutional values like equality and freedom. They are culturally rich, enjoying frequent festivals, art, and literature. Despite their national pride, they maintain close cultural relationships with neighboring countries.

In Conclusion

These five nations have found ways to integrate joy into their everyday lives, from Switzerland’s alpine adventures to the Netherlands’ bicycle commutes and art festivals. As the article puts it, “whether it’s the Swiss perfecting the art of chocolate consumption, Australians turning every weekend into a beach party, or Scandinavians creating social systems so good they make the rest of us question our life choices,” these countries have discovered how to build happiness into the fabric of their societies.

The search for happiness is a shared journey, but having the right systems in place to protect and support it is just smart planning. After all, you’ll want to be financially protected while you’re busy learning to say ‘I’m extremely content’ in Dutch, Norwegian, or Swedish.

Zelensky Awaits Putin in Turkey Amid Trump’s Push for Peace Talks

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he will be waiting for Russian President Vladimir Putin in Turkey on Thursday, responding to recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump urging Ukraine to engage in negotiations with Russia. Trump had emphasized the importance of talks to potentially end the conflict that has ravaged Ukraine under Putin’s command.

In a strong message delivered on Truth Social, Trump expressed his frustration over the ongoing war and stressed the urgency for peace negotiations. “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH,” Trump wrote. He followed this with a demand directed at Ukraine: “Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY. At least they will be able to determine whether or not a deal is possible, and if it is not, European leaders, and the U.S., will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly!”

Trump further commented on the possibility of Ukraine rejecting a deal with Russia. “I’m starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin, who’s too busy celebrating the Victory of World War ll, which could not have been won (not even close!) without the United States of America. HAVE THE MEETING, NOW!!!”

Although it remains uncertain whether Putin himself will attend any talks in Turkey, Zelensky swiftly responded after Trump’s social media post. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), the Ukrainian leader confirmed his intention to be in Turkey for possible peace discussions. He wrote, “We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy. There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses.”

The international community has not been informed whether representatives from the United States or the European nations commonly referred to as the “coalition of the willing” will attend the proposed talks in Istanbul. Nevertheless, the idea of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine has gained renewed attention following remarks from Putin earlier in the week.

In the early hours of Sunday, the Russian president offered a proposal for direct negotiations with Ukraine, aiming for what he called a lasting and comprehensive peace. Putin stated that the talks, planned for May 15 in Istanbul, would focus on addressing the root causes of the war, not merely establishing a temporary pause that would allow for future conflict.

“We are proposing that Kyiv resume direct negotiations without any preconditions,” Putin said. “We offer the Kyiv authorities to resume negotiations already on Thursday, in Istanbul.” He went on to emphasize that the initiative was already presented to Ukraine, placing the onus on its leadership. “Our proposal, as they say, is on the table. The decision is now up to the Ukrainian authorities and their curators, who are guided, it seems, by their personal political ambitions, and not by the interests of their peoples.”

Putin’s comments came in the aftermath of a stern demand made by European powers during a meeting in Kyiv on Saturday. Leaders from France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom urged Putin to accept an unconditional ceasefire for 30 days. Failure to comply, they warned, would trigger “massive” new sanctions against Russia. However, Putin rejected what he described as “ultimatums” from Europe.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who was among the European leaders in Kyiv, joined French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk for discussions with Zelensky. The group also held a phone conversation with Trump, who, like them, had previously called for a short-term truce.

During his visit to Kyiv, Starmer reinforced the unity of the Western allies and their shared commitment to peace. “Together with the US,” he said, “we are calling Putin out” and pledged that if the Russian leader “turns his back on peace,” sanctions would be increased. Starmer added that the European coalition was determined to uphold the principles that were defended during World War II. “It was important to demonstrate that the values that underpin what was being fought for 80 years ago were the same values now, that we will step up and play our part to preserve the peace and bring about that ceasefire.”

In response to Putin’s Sunday announcement regarding the proposed direct talks, Macron welcomed the gesture but maintained skepticism. He labeled the Russian president’s offer as “a first step, but not enough.” Speaking to France 24 during his return journey from Kyiv, Macron explained that while Putin might be searching for an exit strategy, he was likely also trying to buy time. “An unconditional ceasefire is not preceded by negotiations,” Macron said, dismissing Putin’s plan as insufficient for a real breakthrough.

As both leaders prepare for what could be a significant diplomatic moment, questions remain about the sincerity of Putin’s offer and the likelihood of reaching any meaningful resolution. For now, Zelensky has made clear his willingness to attend and participate in the talks, awaiting his Russian counterpart’s arrival in Turkey on Thursday. The global community watches closely, hoping that diplomacy might finally offer a path toward peace after months of devastation and loss.

Gulf Powers Race to Leverage Trump Visit for Strategic Gains

Three energy-rich Gulf nations—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—are moving swiftly to transform their influence over U.S. President Donald Trump into tangible advantages as he prepares to visit the region this week. The leaders of these nations have fostered personal relationships with Trump, collectively committed trillions of dollars to American investments, and positioned themselves as indispensable players in conflicts that Trump aims to address, including those in Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran.

In return, they’re being rewarded with the prestige of hosting Trump’s first official state visits since beginning his second term. The trip kicks off in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, with scheduled stops in Qatar and the UAE, extending through May 16.

Given Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, the Gulf nations hold considerable appeal.

“In Trump’s book, the Gulf states tick all the right boxes,” said Hasan Alhasan, senior fellow for Middle East policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain. “They pledge to invest trillions in the US economy and spend colossal amounts on US weapons systems.”

This well-orchestrated strategy to win Trump’s favor stems from a desire among Gulf leaders to entrench their status as crucial security and economic partners to the United States, while also maximizing their own gains.

Relations between the US and Gulf nations have markedly improved since Trump’s return to the White House. Under President Biden, Gulf leaders had grown disillusioned with what they perceived as waning U.S. interest in their concerns. During that period, Saudi Arabia and the UAE actively diversified their military, technological, and economic alliances. Now, Trump’s leadership presents what a Gulf official described as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to realize long-standing goals.

“This is the time to consolidate ties with Washington,” said EbtesamAlKetbi, founder and president of the Emirates Policy Center in Abu Dhabi, “and even secure greater privileges in their relationship with the world’s most powerful nation.”

Each of the three countries on Trump’s itinerary has distinct objectives for his visit, and each is employing a tailored strategy to achieve its goals.

Saudi Arabia Seeks a Security Agreement

Saudi Arabia’s top priority is clear: bolstering its security partnership with the United States.

“Security, security and security,” said Ali Shihabi, a commentator and author on Saudi politics and economics, when asked about what Riyadh expects from Trump’s trip. “Gulf States are looking for reassurance of the US security commitment to the Gulf’s stability. Trump has many priorities and has been known to lose interest quickly … and they want to keep him engaged.”

Last year, Washington and Riyadh nearly completed a major defense and trade agreement. However, negotiations stalled due to Saudi Arabia’s demand that Israel make a formal commitment toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, suggested that Trump may push ahead with significant deals regardless of progress on Israeli-Palestinian normalization, which he declared “dead.”

Saudi Arabia is also pursuing U.S. support for its civil nuclear ambitions. Yet its insistence on enriching uranium within its borders has caused concern in both Washington and Tel Aviv due to the potential for nuclear weapons development. High-grade uranium can be weaponized, making this a contentious point.

Despite these hurdles, a U.S.-endorsed Saudi nuclear initiative could be a windfall for American companies in terms of lucrative contracts.

Riyadh appears eager to frame its dealings with the United States as mutually beneficial. In March, Trump said, “They’ve agreed to do that, so I’m going to be going there,” referencing a proposed $1 trillion Saudi investment in the U.S.

Though Saudi Arabia did not confirm that specific amount, in January it did announce plans to boost trade and investment with the United States by $600 billion over four years, with potential for further increases.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s efforts to diversify its economy away from oil still depend heavily on oil revenues. Recent price drops, partly driven by Trump’s trade tariffs, have undercut Saudi efforts. Trump has made his preference for lower oil prices clear, a stance that conflicts with Riyadh’s need for high oil revenues to bankroll its economic transformation.

UAE Aims for Technological Leadership

Of the Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates is perhaps the most focused on leveraging investment to cement its relationship with the U.S. and generate substantial returns. Backed by vast financial resources and holding one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, the UAE has pledged trillions in American investments. Its capital, Abu Dhabi, even brands itself as “the capital of capital.”

“Expanding trade and investment is a way to reinforce this strategic partnership,” said AlKetbi. “The US remains a critical security guarantor for the Gulf region, while also offering a dynamic economy full of opportunities and capabilities that align with the long-term Gulf development plans.”

In March, the UAE revealed a $1.4 trillion investment plan over the next decade focused on artificial intelligence, semiconductors, manufacturing, and energy. Its existing American investments already amount to $1 trillion, according to its embassy in Washington.

“The UAE sees a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a significant contributor in AI and advanced technology,” said Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE president. “The commitment to invest $1.4 trillion… aligns with the UAE’s goal to diversify its economy away from its over reliance on hydrocarbons to ensure prosperity for the country in the future.”

However, realizing its ambition to lead globally in AI by 2031 will be difficult without access to advanced U.S. microchips. Toward the end of President Biden’s term, the U.S. enacted tighter restrictions on AI exports to prevent sensitive technologies from reaching adversaries such as China. These restrictions, set to take effect on May 15, include limits that also affect the UAE.

On Thursday, the U.S. announced that Trump will rescind some of those Biden-era restrictions, potentially removing a significant obstacle for the UAE.

Qatar Focuses on Strategic Diplomacy

Qatar stands out for having the most formalized security arrangement with the United States among the Gulf states. It hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, which the State Department has labeled “indispensable” for regional operations.

Last year, the U.S. discreetly extended its military presence at the base for another decade. Washington also updated its 1992 defense cooperation agreement with Qatar to further strengthen bilateral security ties.

In 2022, the Biden administration granted Qatar the status of Major Non-NATO Ally, a title reserved for nations with close military cooperation with the U.S.

Qatar has also played mediator in several global conflicts—from Gaza to Afghanistan—partly as a means of maintaining its relevance in Washington’s eyes.

“The Gulf states view conflict mediation as a source of influence and prestige,” said Alhasan. “They have managed to use their role as mediators to position themselves as indispensable partners for Trump’s political agenda.”

Doha also maintains ties with Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and is pushing for a U.S. review of sanctions imposed under the Caesar Act. An official familiar with the matter told CNN that Qatar will raise this issue with Trump during his visit, though Doha is reluctant to offer financial support to Syria without U.S. approval.

Ultimately, Trump’s trip is seen by experts as an opportunity for all sides to finalize substantial agreements.

“He’s coming here because he believes it is in the interest of the US economy, perhaps his interest and those around him, to have those deals here with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar,” said Maksad. “So expect big announcements.”

Tense Calm After India-Pakistan Ceasefire Amid Violations, Blackouts, and Global Diplomacy

Just hours after India and Pakistan agreed to an immediate ceasefire to halt military engagements along the Line of Control and the international border, renewed violations and continued hostilities have raised doubts over the sustainability of the truce. On Saturday night, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri urged Pakistan to address repeated border violations and warned that India’s armed forces, maintaining high vigilance, were delivering “appropriate and adequate responses” to any breaches of the understanding.

The situation quickly deteriorated after the announcement. Explosions and sirens were reported in multiple locations including Srinagar and Anantnag in Jammu and Kashmir, Barmer in Rajasthan, and Kutch in Gujarat. These incidents were accompanied by power blackouts in Punjab cities such as Amritsar, Ferozepur, Pathankot, and Barnala, with officials describing the measures as “precautionary.” In Gujarat’s Kutch, State Minister for Home Harsh Sanghavi cited drone sightings as the cause for a complete blackout and urged citizens not to panic.

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah voiced concern over the violations, writing on X, “What the hell just happened to the ceasefire? Explosions heard across Srinagar!!!” Such reactions reflect a widespread sense of unease and disbelief in the truce’s credibility.

While the ceasefire was formally described by both nations as a mutual agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed early credit, stating that he would work with India and Pakistan toward resolving the long-standing Kashmir issue. In a post on Truth Social, Trump praised the leadership of both countries, saying, “I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan… Millions of good and innocent people could have died!” He added that he intends to “substantially” boost trade with both nations and to “work with you both to see if, after a ‘thousand years,’ a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.”

Despite Trump’s framing, India has firmly stated that the ceasefire was a bilateral decision, denying any third-party mediation. However, the U.S. State Department referred to the agreement as a “US-brokered ceasefire,” underscoring the role of diplomatic outreach over the prior 48 hours by top U.S. officials including Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio. Rubio revealed that he and Vice President Vance had spoken to Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and both countries’ National Security Advisors.

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar announced on X that the two nations had agreed to a ceasefire “with immediate effect.” He emphasized Pakistan’s commitment to regional peace without compromising sovereignty—a pointed reference to India’s earlier airstrikes deep inside Pakistani territory targeting alleged terror bases.

From Delhi’s standpoint, the ceasefire was not just a tactical pause but also a signal of red lines. Indian sources emphasized that any future act of terrorism would be viewed as an act of war. Measures such as suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, previously used as diplomatic leverage, remain in abeyance. India claims it had achieved strategic superiority by defending itself against drone and missile attacks, despite incurring losses among civilians, infrastructure, and military personnel.

On the ground in Jammu province, reporter Arun Sharma noted that the ceasefire understanding appeared to be holding along both the international border and the LoC, with no reported drone activity. Nevertheless, a tense calm prevailed, with many residents voluntarily switching off lights amid lingering fear of attacks.

Further complicating the narrative, India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar reiterated that terrorism in any form would not be tolerated. “India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so,” he posted on X. His statement was a clear signal that while India may have paused hostilities, it remains ready to respond to provocations.

Meanwhile, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor posted a poetic yet pointed dig at Pakistan’s reliability, writing in Hindi, “Uski fitrat hai mukar jaane ki… uske vaade par yakeen kaise karu?” or “It’s their nature to turn back on their word. How do I trust their promise?” He used the hashtag “ceasefire violated,” reflecting widespread skepticism in Indian political circles.

Internationally, the ceasefire attracted attention from key global players. Jaishankar and NSA Ajit Doval reportedly held talks with ministers from China, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union. The Chinese Foreign Ministry confirmed that State Councillor Wang Yi spoke with Doval and expressed hope that both countries would manage their differences through dialogue. Wang condemned the terrorist attack in Pahalgam that triggered the recent escalation and emphasized China’s support for peace and stability in South Asia. “Peace and stability in the Asian region is hard-won and deserves to be cherished,” said Wang.

The uneasy calm also spread to migrant communities in India. In Gujarat’s Bhuj region, migrant workers scrambled to return to their home states after hearing delayed reports of the ceasefire. Highways echoed scenes reminiscent of the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown as workers boarded trucks and buses, fearing further escalation. Patrol units continued enforcing blackout orders into the evening, even as ceasefire news made its slow way to remote villages.

In Jammu and Kashmir’s Rajouri district, fresh shelling was reported within hours of the truce. The Sunderbani and Nowshera sectors saw renewed firing Saturday night, with six casualties, including a JKAS officer and a BSF sub-inspector. Sirens blared in Udhampur, leading to another round of blackouts and panic among civilians. Earlier that day, the BSF destroyed a terrorist launch pad in Pakistan’s Sialkot district, even as Pakistan reportedly targeted civilian areas with artillery and loitering munitions.

The fragile ceasefire now sits precariously between diplomatic optimism and ground-level volatility. With major world powers watching closely and domestic pressures mounting in both India and Pakistan, the coming days will test whether this truce can evolve into lasting peace or merely remain a brief pause in long-standing hostilities.

Old Rivalry in a New Global Landscape

A long-standing conflict between India and Pakistan is once again drawing global attention after a fresh episode of military confrontation, hinting at the possibility of a new flashpoint emerging amid shifting global alliances and economic interests.

India carried out missile strikes on nine terrorist camps located in Pakistan, describing the action as a direct response to the recent killing of 26 civilians in the Pahalgam region of Kashmir. The Indian government maintains that these operations were carefully targeted and avoided any escalation. “Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature,” it said in a statement issued late Tuesday, emphasizing that no Pakistani military sites were attacked during Operation Sindoor. However, Pakistan has denied any connection to the attack in Pahalgam.

The situation quickly escalated with cross-border artillery exchanges following India’s strikes. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the Indian military operation and warned that his country would respond firmly. He posted on social media that Pakistan would act “decisively” against the “cowardly attacks.” Further intensifying the standoff, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif claimed on Wednesday morning that Pakistan had shot down Indian planes. As of 8:30 a.m. in New Delhi, India had not officially responded to that allegation.

Both nations, despite the exchange of fire, have insisted that they do not wish to let the hostilities spiral into a broader conflict. Their allies are echoing the same sentiment. US President Donald Trump commented at an unrelated press briefing, “They’ve been fighting for a long time. I just hope it ends very quickly.”

The impact of these developments is already being felt in India’s financial markets. Stocks and the rupee are expected to be affected, and several airports in northern India were closed early Wednesday as a precautionary measure.

Although India and Pakistan have previously gone to war three times since gaining independence, more recent conflicts—including those in 2001, 2016, and 2019—have seen both sides step back before the situation could evolve into full-scale warfare. However, several new factors could influence the trajectory of this current conflict.

The nature of the April 22 terrorist attack, which deliberately targeted civilians—specifically Hindu men—in Jammu and Kashmir, marks a sharp departure from previous assaults. It came at a time when the region was beginning to show signs of economic renewal. The attack also coincided with a high-profile diplomatic visit by US Vice President JD Vance, who was in India to reaffirm the strategic bond between the two countries.

In a significant policy shift, India responded by halting a long-standing Himalayan river-water sharing treaty with Pakistan. On Monday, Pakistan accused India of restricting river flows as part of this retaliation. This adds another layer to the tensions, especially given the importance of water resources in the region.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s internal political dynamics are also contributing to the strain. Army Chief General Asim Munir has adopted a more aggressive tone in recent weeks, possibly to rally domestic support amid the country’s ongoing recovery from a severe economic crisis. Pakistan’s influence on the global stage has diminished following the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, prompting its leadership to adopt more nationalist rhetoric.

Adding to the geopolitical complexity is China’s involvement. China has invested over $55 billion in a strategic economic corridor that runs through Pakistan, part of its larger Belt and Road Initiative. This project is one of Beijing’s most ambitious undertakings, particularly crucial in light of its strained relations with India over territorial and trade issues. Following the Pahalgam attack, China called for calm between India and Pakistan. At the same time, it reaffirmed its strong ties with Islamabad, stating that it was “Pakistan’s ironclad friend and all-weather strategic cooperative partner” and that it “fully understands Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns.”

Beyond regional rivalries, the conflict is unfolding at a time when India is in the midst of delicate negotiations with the United States over a trade agreement. India aims to maintain its favorable export access to the American market and capitalize on global supply chain realignments brought about by the US-China trade dispute. These talks hold major economic significance for New Delhi and further highlight the high-stakes nature of this current episode of India-Pakistan tension.

Therefore, while the conflict between these nuclear-armed neighbors is rooted in a long history of territorial and religious disputes, the current confrontation needs to be understood in the framework of evolving global geopolitics. Unlike previous flare-ups, this one is influenced by broader strategic interests, including those of global powers like the US and China.

The global order today is markedly different from what it was during past India-Pakistan clashes. The rivalry now plays out in a world where the US and China are engaged in a new form of cold war, and their stakes in South Asia have deepened considerably. Both India and Pakistan are no longer just regional actors; they are players in a much larger geopolitical game involving trade, diplomacy, and strategic alliances.

In this transformed context, even localized violence risks triggering broader implications. Economic, military, and diplomatic moves in South Asia are now watched with heightened sensitivity by international stakeholders. Each development has the potential to affect markets, shift alliances, and influence global policy calculations.

While history has shown that India and Pakistan are capable of backing down before reaching the brink of war, the stakes have changed. Strategic partnerships, economic investments, and superpower rivalries now intersect with the old animosities of the subcontinent. How this new round of tension unfolds will not only affect the lives of millions in the region but also reverberate across the global stage.

The world will be watching closely as both nations decide how far they’re willing to go—and whether they can step back from the edge, as they’ve managed to do in the past. But the evolving landscape suggests that peace will not come from military restraint alone. It will also depend on diplomatic agility, economic foresight, and a recognition that in today’s interconnected world, old conflicts can have far-reaching consequences.

India Warns of Measured Response to Terrorism, Cautions Pakistan Against Escalation

India will continue to respond in a “measured” and calculated manner to terrorist attacks against its citizens and territory, but it will not tolerate any moves by Pakistan to escalate military conflict, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar told U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a phone call on Thursday night. The conversation came amid growing tension following cross-border hostilities between India and Pakistan.

During the call, Jaishankar expressed appreciation for the United States’ commitment to cooperate in the global fight against terrorism. He said India’s actions were aimed at maintaining stability and ensuring that terrorism is countered firmly but responsibly.

“Underlined India’s targeted and measured response to cross-border terrorism. Will firmly counter any attempts at escalation,” Jaishankar stated in a post on social media platform X following the discussion with Rubio.

On a separate call with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Rubio stressed the need for “immediate de-escalation” of military tension, according to a U.S. State Department spokesperson. The appeal from the U.S. came at a time when tensions were rapidly rising between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

The conversation between Jaishankar and Rubio occurred just hours before Pakistan launched a wave of missile and drone strikes aimed at Indian military sites. The strikes targeted regions including Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, representing one of the most coordinated aerial attacks in recent years. These assaults were met with strong defensive responses from the Indian military.

Most of the incoming projectiles were neutralized by Indian air defense systems, preventing what could have been extensive damage and casualties. Despite the successful interception, the attacks triggered panic, prompting air raid sirens and blackouts in several areas close to the border, including the union territory of Chandigarh, which lies only 244 kilometers from the national capital, Delhi.

In one of the more intense exchanges, eight missiles were fired by Pakistan at military positions in Jammu and Kashmir alone. Fortunately, all were intercepted before causing any damage, according to official sources. In Punjab, Pathankot, which lies just 30 kilometers from the Pakistani border, experienced a full-scale blackout in anticipation of further attacks.

Local residents posted dramatic footage on social media, capturing the frightening spectacle of Pakistani missiles blazing through the night sky and exploding mid-air as they were intercepted by Indian defense systems. These videos showed the tense atmosphere along the border and the high level of alertness maintained by Indian forces.

According to defense sources, at least one Pakistani fighter jet was reportedly shot down during the incident. The aircraft, identified as a supersonic F-16, was believed to be part of the strike mission targeting Indian facilities.

This latest wave of Pakistani attacks came just one day after another barrage of missiles was launched late Wednesday and early Thursday. That earlier offensive targeted Indian military installations in 15 cities, including Amritsar, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, and Srinagar. In response, India’s air defense network, primarily the Russian-manufactured S-400 system, successfully intercepted and neutralized the incoming threats.

In retaliation, India deployed its Israeli-made HARPY drones to conduct strikes on Pakistani air defense systems. These drones reportedly hit targets in Lahore and other strategic locations, significantly weakening Pakistan’s ability to protect its airspace and making it vulnerable to potential future counterstrikes.

The ongoing escalation follows India’s execution of precision strikes on terrorist camps located both in Pakistan and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). These strikes, carried out by Indian armed forces, were launched under the codename “Operation Sindoor.” The coordinated military action took place early Wednesday morning and was completed within a 25-minute window starting at 1:05 a.m.

During the operation, Indian forces unleashed a powerful assault using a range of advanced weaponry, including HAMMER smart bombs and SCALP missiles. A total of 24 munitions were deployed, targeting nine terror sites—four in Pakistan and five in PoK. These sites, identified as headquarters and training facilities for terrorist organizations, were completely destroyed in the operation.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh reported that more than 100 terrorists were killed during the strikes, marking one of the deadliest counterterror operations conducted by India in recent years.

Operation Sindoor was a direct response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, located in the southern part of Kashmir. That brutal assault was carried out by four militants belonging to The Resistance Front, a known proxy group of the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization.

The attackers opened fire in the Baisaran Valley, a well-known tourist destination located less than 70 kilometers from Srinagar, killing 26 people. Many of the victims were civilians, adding to the sense of outrage across the country and triggering an urgent response from Indian authorities.

The horrifying incident in Pahalgam had drawn strong condemnation from Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Following the attack, Modi vowed that India would retaliate and hold the perpetrators accountable for the loss of innocent lives. “Those who are responsible for this cowardly attack will not be spared,” he said in a statement soon after the incident.

The Indian government’s firm stance on dealing with cross-border terrorism has now manifested in a series of military actions aimed at dismantling terrorist infrastructure and sending a clear signal to those providing safe haven to such groups.

As the situation evolves, the international community, particularly the United States, has been closely monitoring developments. The Biden administration has emphasized the importance of restraint and de-escalation while also expressing support for India’s right to self-defense.

At the same time, New Delhi has communicated that it remains committed to regional stability but will not shy away from responding to any threat to its sovereignty. Jaishankar’s message to Secretary Rubio reinforces India’s position: it seeks peace, but not at the cost of its national security.

The coming days will be crucial as diplomatic and military channels remain active. With the U.S. urging both sides to reduce tensions, attention now shifts to whether Pakistan will heed the warning or continue with provocative actions.

Meanwhile, India has reaffirmed that it will continue to act decisively against terrorism while avoiding unnecessary escalation. This balance between assertiveness and restraint underscores New Delhi’s strategy of safeguarding its interests without plunging the region into wider conflict.

India Launches Missile Strikes on Pakistan Following Kashmir Attack, Triggering Sharp Escalation

Tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan dramatically intensified on Wednesday after India launched missile strikes into Pakistani territory, just two weeks after a deadly terrorist assault in Indian-administered Kashmir left 26 people dead.

Pakistan labeled the missile strikes as an “act of war” and said they targeted nine locations across Pakistan’s Punjab province and in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Pakistani officials reported 26 fatalities and 46 injuries, including six individuals who died at two separate mosques and two teenagers killed elsewhere.

India defended its actions by asserting that the attacks specifically targeted “terror camps” and refrained from hitting civilian or military sites. Emphasizing its careful approach, India’s defense ministry released a statement saying, “Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature.”

Following the strikes, multiple buildings were engulfed in flames, and power outages occurred in various parts of the affected regions, according to verified videos circulating on social media. One video captured a blast landing just feet from a group of bicyclists, following a distinct hissing sound. In other footage, ambulances were seen rushing the injured to hospitals.

India has blamed Pakistan for orchestrating the April 22 massacre of 26 civilians—mainly tourists—in Indian-controlled Kashmir. The region, claimed in full by both nations, has long been a flashpoint for violence and military confrontation. India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of fostering cross-border terrorism, a charge Pakistan denies. Islamabad has instead called for a “neutral” probe into the Kashmir attack, which is considered the deadliest assault on Indian civilians in nearly 20 years.

In response to growing international scrutiny, the Indian Embassy in Washington issued a strongly worded statement: “It was expected that Pakistan would take action against terrorists and the infrastructure that supports them. Instead, during the fortnight that has gone by, Pakistan has indulged in denial and made allegations of false flag operations against India.”

In retaliation to the strikes, Pakistani security sources claimed they had already downed five Indian Air Force jets and one drone. India has yet to confirm these reports. Meanwhile, the Indian army reported that three civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir.

According to Indian army officer Col. Sofiya Qureshi, the missile attacks began at 1:05 a.m. local time on Wednesday and lasted approximately 25 minutes. Indian Air Force Wing Commander Vyomika Singh stated that India employed “precision capability” during the strikes to minimize “collateral damage.”

Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri explained during a press briefing that India had intelligence suggesting “further attacks against India are impending.” He said the strikes were intended as both retaliation for the earlier massacre and a preventive measure against future aggression.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned India’s actions, vowing a firm response. “Pakistan has every right to give a robust response to this act of war imposed by India, and a strong response is indeed being given,” he stated. Sharif also called an emergency meeting of Pakistan’s National Security Committee for Wednesday morning.

International leaders quickly weighed in, calling for calm and diplomacy to avoid further deterioration of the situation. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged both countries’ militaries to avoid further escalation. “The world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan,” he warned.

In Washington, the U.S. National Security Council revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had reached out to both Indian and Pakistani officials. NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes said, “He is encouraging India and Pakistan to reopen a channel between their leadership to defuse the situation and prevent further escalation.”

President Donald Trump also addressed the crisis, describing the conflict as “a shame” and adding, “I just hope it ends very quickly.”

China, which shares borders with both nations, expressed regret over the military actions and called on India and Pakistan to prioritize regional stability. “Regrettable,” was how the Chinese government described the strikes, adding that both sides should “act in the larger interest of peace and stability.”

Indian leaders, meanwhile, celebrated the strikes as a justified and precise response to terrorism. Defense Minister Rajnath Singh exclaimed, “Glory to mother India!” while Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar echoed the sentiment by saying, “The world must show zero tolerance for terrorism.”

In anticipation of further conflict, Pakistani authorities ordered the closure of all schools in Punjab and the Islamabad Capital Territory. Air travel was also disrupted, with some airports reportedly shut down.

The operation has been dubbed Operation Sindoor, referencing the red vermilion worn by married Hindu women as a symbol of love and devotion. Details from the Kashmir attack that preceded these strikes reveal the brutality of the act: the attackers reportedly identified non-Muslims among the tourists, separating the men from women and children, and then executed the men in front of their families.

The Kashmir conflict remains a deeply entrenched source of hostility between the two nations. India and Pakistan have already fought two out of their three wars over this region. Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority region in India and is among the world’s most heavily militarized zones. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist, had previously argued that his government’s 2019 decision to revoke Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status helped end separatist violence and boost tourism. However, the April attack has seriously undermined that narrative.

Since that incident, India has ramped up pressure on Pakistan. It has threatened to disrupt Pakistan’s water supply and shut down the sole operational land border crossing. Within Kashmir, authorities have carried out sweeping crackdowns, arresting hundreds and demolishing homes belonging to families of suspected militants.

The diplomatic fallout continues to deepen. Both countries have closed their airspaces to each other’s airlines, suspended or revoked visas for each other’s citizens, and frozen bilateral trade. In a sign of growing concern about a larger confrontation, India has initiated civil defense drills while Pakistan has conducted missile tests in response.

The region and the world now anxiously await the next move in this rapidly evolving conflict, as leaders weigh their options between military escalation and diplomatic resolution.

Indian Textile Industry Struggles as Chinese Yarn Floods Market Amid US Trade Tensions

At his spinning mill in Tamil Nadu, 64-year-old Thirunavkarsu has observed a marked slowdown in operations. The viscose yarn produced at his facility, a material widely used in woven garments, is piling up in storage. Orders from domestic factories have decreased by nearly 40% over the past month. The primary reason behind this downturn is a surge in cheaper Chinese imports. These viscose yarn imports are now priced 15 rupees less per kilo, undercutting Indian producers and saturating Indian ports.

The development is a ripple effect of the US imposing tariffs as high as 145% on Chinese imports. In response, Chinese manufacturers are now targeting other markets, including India, leading to significant disruptions for local businesses. Indian textile producers argue they are bearing the brunt of these international trade tensions as Chinese yarn floods critical production zones.

Although China remains the world’s top producer of viscose yarn, India has traditionally relied on domestic production to meet its own needs, only turning to imports to cover shortfalls. But with the current price war, local mill operators like Thirunavkarsu feel outmatched. “We can’t match these rates. Our raw material is not as cheap,” he lamented.

Jagadesh Chandran, who represents the South India Spinners Association, highlighted the issue further. He told the BBC that close to 50 small spinning mills located in Pallipalayam, Karur, and Tirupur in southern India are currently “slowing production.” Many of these mills fear they may have to scale down even further if the situation remains unresolved.

In an effort to calm concerns, China’s Ambassador to India, Xu Feihong, assured that his country does not intend to destabilize foreign markets. He stated that China hopes to increase its imports of quality Indian goods. “We will not engage in market dumping or cut-throat competition, nor will we disrupt other countries’ industries and economic development,” Xu wrote in an opinion piece for the Indian Express newspaper.

Nevertheless, concerns are mounting across various sectors in India, not just textiles. As Asia’s largest economy and the world’s leading exporter of industrial goods—ranging from chemicals and metals to rare minerals—China’s outreach has extended well beyond yarn. Although some Chinese exports such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductor chips, laptops, and smartphones have been spared from US tariffs, many other goods are now seeking new markets, with India being a prime target.

According to Japanese brokerage firm Nomura, this influx could cause major disruptions in Asia’s emerging economies. The firm’s earlier research found that China was already pushing cheap goods into global markets even before Donald Trump returned to office in early 2024.

This concern is reflected in the record number of investigations into unfair Chinese trade practices. Data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) indicates that in 2024 alone, nearly 200 complaints were filed against China. India filed 37 of these, more than in any previous year.

India, already heavily reliant on Chinese raw materials and semi-finished goods, is particularly vulnerable. Its trade deficit with China has now ballooned to $100 billion. In March alone, imports surged by 25%, driven largely by electronics, solar cells, and batteries.

In response, India’s trade ministry has formed a dedicated committee to monitor the inflow of cheap Chinese goods. This committee, along with a quasi-judicial arm, is investigating imports across various sectors, including viscose yarn.

The Indian government has also imposed a 12% safeguard duty on specific steel imports, primarily targeting low-cost shipments from China. These imports were undercutting local steel mills and forcing them to scale back production.

Despite these protective measures and the government’s high-profile “Make in India” campaign, the country has struggled to wean itself off Chinese imports. Even during periods of heightened border tension with China post-2020, Indian imports continued to climb.

Trade expert Biswajit Dhar points to structural issues. He believes that initiatives like production-linked incentives (PLIs), aimed at turning India into a global manufacturing hub, have seen only “limited success.” According to Dhar, India still depends significantly on Chinese intermediate goods to manufacture finished products.

This reliance is evident in sectors like electronics. Even as multinational corporations like Apple shift assembly lines to India, the country still relies heavily on Chinese components for manufacturing phones. Consequently, imports in this sector have soared, further widening the trade gap.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), called India’s growing trade deficit a “worrying story.” Despite a weaker rupee, which should typically benefit exporters, India’s shipments to China have fallen below 2014 levels. “This isn’t just a trade imbalance. It’s a structural warning. Our industrial growth, including through PLI (production linked incentive) schemes, is fuelling imports, not building domestic depth,” Srivastava wrote in a social media post. He emphasized, “We can’t bridge this deficit without bridging our competitiveness gap.”

India must act swiftly to capitalize on the opportunity presented by the current US-China trade tensions. There’s urgency, too, because countries experiencing a surge in imports from China typically undergo a sharp decline in manufacturing output, as highlighted by Nomura.

Akash Prakash of Amansa Capital echoed this sentiment. In a column for the Business Standard, he wrote that a major reason Indian private firms were hesitant to invest was the fear of being “swamped by China.” This observation aligns with a recent study conducted by ratings agency Icra, which reached similar conclusions.

As concerns about Chinese dumping spread globally, regions like the European Union are also pressing Beijing for assurances that their markets won’t be overrun. This growing international pressure is compelling China to seek alternative trade partners outside the US with greater urgency.

Dhar believes that China is attempting to reshape the global narrative. “It is trying to come clean amidst increased scrutiny,” he said. Yet, despite China’s reassurances, Dhar argues that India should use the current diplomatic thaw with China to assert its position on anti-dumping measures more clearly. “This is an issue that India must flag, like most of the Western countries have,” he urged.

In summary, the situation has underscored India’s vulnerability to global trade shifts and its ongoing reliance on Chinese imports. With domestic industries like textiles under pressure and structural issues hampering the success of industrial policy, experts say the country must address these challenges decisively. Otherwise, the current flood of cheap Chinese goods could stall India’s manufacturing ambitions at a crucial juncture.

Canada’s Election Highlights Growing Regional Divides Across the Country

The recent Canadian election has underlined the widening rifts among the country’s different regions, with voting patterns showing stark contrasts in political preference. A shift in support from smaller parties toward the dominant Liberal and Conservative camps has defined the election outcome, suggesting that many voters have consolidated around the major political players amid an increasingly polarized environment.

In Western Canada, the majority of parliamentary seats have turned Conservative blue. The oil-producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have long harbored feelings of alienation from decision-makers in Ottawa. This sentiment was echoed by many voters in the region, who expressed frustration that the Liberal government appeared more concerned with U.S. affairs than with addressing domestic priorities. This ongoing discontent is so pronounced that it has even led to some voices calling for secession from the rest of Canada. The re-election of a Liberal government, which secured very few seats in these western provinces, could intensify those separatist sentiments.

The New Democratic Party (NDP), which has historical roots in Saskatchewan, has faced a significant electoral setback, marking its worst performance since 1993. Analysts and voters alike point to the party’s continued support for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s struggling administration as a key factor in this defeat. Furthermore, some individuals in Western Canada believe that potential NDP voters may have strategically cast their ballots for the Liberals in a bid to block a Conservative victory, thus weakening the NDP’s final tally.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the long-standing debate over independence remains a potent undercurrent in the province’s political landscape. Despite this, voters in Quebec appear to have largely supported the Liberals, especially in light of hostile rhetoric from U.S. President Donald Trump. Many Quebecois, though traditionally open to discussions around sovereignty, seem to have opted for stability and national unity in the face of perceived external threats.

Émilie Foster, an adjunct professor of politics at Carleton University, told the BBC last week, “We prefer to be part of Canada instead of being part of the United States, if we have to choose.” Her statement reflects the provincial mood of choosing national solidarity over an uncertain future, particularly when considering geopolitical dynamics with the United States.

Despite these significant regional dynamics, the election campaign has done little to shed light on the pressing concerns of Canada’s Indigenous communities, especially those in the northern territories. While the national conversation has been heavily focused on topics related to Donald Trump and Canada’s positioning in the global landscape, northern Indigenous voters are grappling with immediate and longstanding challenges.

For many in Canada’s remote northern areas, the priority issues include access to nutritious food, clean drinking water, reliable transportation, and the development of essential infrastructure. These practical concerns, however, were largely absent from the mainstream election discourse, leaving northern voters uncertain about whether their communities’ needs will be prioritized in the new political term.

Although the major political parties were busy consolidating their power in the larger urban centers and affluent regions, the northern territories—home to many Indigenous populations—were left feeling disconnected from the national political narrative. Residents there continue to experience higher costs for basic goods, poor water quality in several communities, and inadequate infrastructure, such as roads and healthcare facilities.

While the Conservatives gained considerable ground in Western Canada, and the Liberals retained support in parts of Ontario and Quebec, the northern territories remained on the fringes of political engagement. This has led to skepticism among Indigenous leaders, who are now questioning whether the incoming government will finally prioritize meaningful action on these vital local concerns.

To summarize, the Canadian election results tell a story not just of shifting political allegiances but also of deeply entrenched regional disparities. In the west, feelings of exclusion and resentment continue to grow, potentially feeding separatist ideologies. In Quebec, historical calls for independence have been momentarily sidelined in favor of preserving national unity amid turbulent U.S.-Canada relations. Meanwhile, in the north, Indigenous communities remain worried that their everyday struggles will once again be overshadowed by broader political narratives that do not reflect their lived realities.

As Canadians look ahead to a new government, the question remains whether leaders in Ottawa will seriously engage with the country’s diverse regional voices—or continue to overlook them. The outcome of this election has made one thing clear: Canada is not one unified political entity, but a patchwork of regions, each with its own set of priorities, frustrations, and hopes for the future.

US Urges India and Pakistan to Pursue Responsible Resolution Amid Rising Kashmir Tensions

The U.S. State Department announced on Sunday that Washington is actively communicating with both India and Pakistan amid growing tensions between the two South Asian neighbors following a recent deadly militant attack in Kashmir. While affirming its support for India, the United States has stopped short of directly criticizing Pakistan.

India has placed blame on Pakistan for the April 22 terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that claimed more than two dozen lives. Pakistan, however, has denied any involvement and is advocating for an impartial international investigation.

“This is an evolving situation and we are monitoring developments closely. We have been in touch with the governments of India and Pakistan at multiple levels,” said a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department in a statement emailed to Reuters. “The United States encourages all parties to work together towards a responsible resolution.”

The State Department also reiterated its condemnation of the attack, specifically referring to the incident in Pahalgam, aligning with statements made earlier by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. “The United States stands with India and strongly condemns the terrorist attack in Pahalgam,” the spokesperson said.

India has become an increasingly strategic partner for the United States as Washington seeks to curb China’s growing power across Asia. Meanwhile, Pakistan, although still a U.S. ally, has seen its importance to American foreign policy decline, particularly after the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021.

Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst based in Washington and a contributor to Foreign Policy magazine, emphasized the shifting dynamics between the U.S. and the two South Asian countries. “India is now a much closer U.S. partner than Pakistan,” Kugelman stated. He noted that this growing alliance could unsettle Islamabad. “This may worry Islamabad that if India retaliates militarily, the U.S. may sympathize with its counter-terrorism imperatives and not try to stand in the way.”

Kugelman also pointed out that the U.S. government, currently engaged in major international crises such as Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Israel-Gaza conflict, may lack the bandwidth to intervene promptly in South Asia. “The Trump administration is dealing with a lot on its global plate and may leave India and Pakistan on their own, at least in the early days of the tensions,” he added.

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. and currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute think tank, echoed this sentiment. He suggested that the current U.S. administration has little interest in de-escalating the situation. “India has a longstanding grievance about terrorism emanating or supported from across border. Pakistan has a longstanding belief that India wants to dismember it. Both work themselves into a frenzy every few years. This time there is no U.S. interest in calming things down,” Haqqani observed.

The region of Kashmir, a Muslim-majority territory, remains a flashpoint of conflict between Hindu-majority India and Islamic Pakistan. Both nations claim the territory in full but control only parts of it. The dispute has triggered several wars and countless skirmishes since the two nations gained independence from Britain in 1947.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, known for his strong nationalist stance, vowed to hunt down the attackers responsible for the Pahalgam violence. “Those who planned and carried out the Kashmir attack will be punished beyond their imagination,” Modi declared. He pledged to pursue the perpetrators “to the ends of the earth.”

In the wake of the attack, demands have surged within India for a military response against Pakistan. Politicians and commentators have urged strong retaliatory measures. The situation has led both nations to take a series of antagonistic steps, worsening bilateral relations further.

Pakistan, in response to India’s accusations and increasing hostility, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft. Meanwhile, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, a key agreement signed in 1960 to manage the shared usage of the Indus River and its tributaries between the two countries.

There have also been reports of military exchanges along the Line of Control, the de facto border that divides Indian and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. This marks an end to a four-year period of relative calm between the nuclear-armed rivals.

The militant group claiming responsibility for the Pahalgam attack, Kashmir Resistance, issued a statement on social media. Indian security agencies contend that this group, also known as The Resistance Front, serves as a front for well-known Pakistan-based terrorist outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.

Ned Price, a former U.S. State Department spokesperson under President Joe Biden, warned that the Trump administration’s perceived strong backing of India might exacerbate the situation. “The Trump Administration has made clear it wishes to deepen the U.S.-India partnership — a laudable goal — but that it is willing to do so at almost any cost. If India feels that the Trump Administration will back it to the hilt no matter what, we could be in store for more escalation and more violence between these nuclear-armed neighbors,” said Price.

The delicate balance of diplomacy in South Asia is now under added strain, with both India and Pakistan escalating rhetoric and taking tit-for-tat measures. The involvement of the United States, while supportive of India’s counter-terrorism position, appears limited in terms of proactive peacemaking, potentially leaving the region to navigate its latest crisis largely on its own.

As tensions mount, the region and the broader international community will be watching closely to see whether diplomatic efforts can prevent another escalation or whether retaliatory military action will push South Asia into yet another phase of heightened conflict. The risks remain high, given both nations possess nuclear weapons and have a long history of confrontations over Kashmir.

Bill Gates Warns AI Will Replace Jobs but Insists It’s Ultimately a Good Thing

Bill Gates is making it clear: artificial intelligence is going to reshape the job market—and not just for blue-collar workers.

On a recent episode of the People by WTF podcast, the Microsoft co-founder outlined a future where AI tools take over some of the most crucial professions in America, including those in education and healthcare.

However, instead of raising concerns, Gates emphasized that this development will bring positive changes, even though millions of workers may soon face major shifts.

“We’ve always had a shortage of doctors, teachers, of people to work in the factories. Those shortages won’t exist,” Gates told podcast host Nikhil Kamath. “AI will come in and provide medical IQ, and there won’t be a shortage.”

Gates also discussed this transition during an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.

“Will we still need humans?” Fallon asked him. Gates responded bluntly, “Not for most things.”

This raises a pressing question: what does this mean for American workers?

When discussing which jobs could be affected, Gates focused on two sectors already facing significant pressure: teaching and healthcare. Both industries have long dealt with staffing shortages, particularly in rural regions across the United States.

Gates believes that AI can either fill these gaps or at least ease some of the strain. In the education sector, AI-powered tutoring tools are already undergoing testing, providing customized support for students in reading and mathematics, according to Government Technology.

In the healthcare arena, companies like Suki, Zephyr AI, and Tennr are helping doctors by generating clinical decision support tools. These technologies assist medical professionals in making quicker and more accurate diagnoses, Business Insider reported.

“Years from now, AI will have changed things enough that just this pure capitalistic framework probably won’t explain much, because as AIs, both as sort of white-collar type work and as blue-collar workers, the robots will get good hands and are able to do the physical things that humans do,” Gates told Kamath. “We will have created, you know, free intelligence.”

And it is not just limited to teachers and doctors. Many other sectors are starting to feel the growing influence of AI.

Apart from the industries Gates mentioned, such as construction, cleaning services, and factory work, AI has already made inroads into customer service and IT support.

For example, AI chatbots—although with mixed results—have largely taken over initial responses for online product support. In some cases, AI acts as a helpful assistant that increases worker productivity. But for others, it could mean complete job replacement. Gates does not deny this possibility. Instead, he argues that the overall trade-off might still be worthwhile.

Gates envisions a future where AI takes on the routine tasks, freeing people up to pursue more leisure activities. He imagines a world where the traditional 40-hour workweek shrinks and people enjoy better work-life balance. Nevertheless, not everyone shares Gates’ optimistic outlook.

A recent United Nations report warned that AI could impact around 40% of jobs globally, bringing heightened fears about automation and mass job loss.

“The benefits of AI-driven automation often favour capital over labour, which could widen inequality and reduce the competitive advantage of low-cost labour in developing economies,” the UN report stated.

While the AI industry is projected to soar to a $4.8 trillion market, the United Nations warns that the economic benefits could be “highly concentrated” among a small group rather than widely shared.

There are other concerns as well. According to UN Women, AI tools have demonstrated tendencies to reproduce racial and gender biases, especially in hiring and healthcare. These biases could deepen existing inequalities rather than alleviate them.

Meanwhile, as consumers hunt for better deals, OfficialCarInsurance.com offers the ability to compare quotes from well-known companies like Progressive, Allstate, and GEICO. Customers can reportedly find lower auto insurance rates by answering a few questions about themselves and their vehicles, sometimes securing offers as low as $29 a month.

Returning to the topic of AI and jobs, the question remains: what should workers do to prepare?

Gates is not alone in predicting the rise of AI. However, he is among the few tech leaders who remain largely hopeful about its impact. If his predictions come true, workers may need to adapt quickly.

This could mean honing skills that complement AI instead of competing with it. Abilities like critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and creativity are areas where human workers currently have the upper hand—at least for the time being.

It is also a crucial time for policymakers to get ahead of the curve. The transition to an AI-driven economy could be turbulent, but with thoughtful regulations and safeguards, it could lead to a more efficient and smarter economic system.

Ultimately, Gates is betting that society will adjust in a way that allows everyone to benefit.

China Expresses Support for Pakistan and Urges Restraint After Pahalgam Terror Attack

China has reaffirmed its strong support for its close ally Pakistan in protecting its sovereignty and security following the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. On Sunday, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi urged both New Delhi and Islamabad to show restraint in response to the escalating tensions triggered by the incident.

In a telephone conversation with Pakistani deputy prime minister and foreign minister Ishaq Dar, Wang conveyed China’s serious concern over the situation. According to a statement issued by China’s foreign ministry, Wang said China is “closely following developments after the terror attack” and supports an “impartial investigation” into the incident.

The dialogue between the two foreign ministers occurred against the backdrop of a severe rise in tensions between India and Pakistan. The attack, which took place on April 22 near the town of Pahalgam, resulted in the deaths of 26 tourists. Responsibility for the assault was claimed by The Resistance Front, a group known to operate as a proxy for Pakistan-based militant organization Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In response to the deadly attack, India implemented a series of strong punitive actions against Pakistan. These measures included the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and the closure of the only functioning land border crossing between the two countries at Attari. Pakistan reacted strongly to India’s actions, warning that any attempt to block river waters would be viewed as an “act of war.” Islamabad also announced countermeasures, including the closure of its airspace to Indian aircraft and the suspension of all trade activities with India.

Addressing these developments, Wang Yi stated, “China has always supported Pakistan in its resolute anti-terrorism actions. As a staunch friend and all-weather strategic partner, China fully understands Pakistan’s reasonable security concerns and supports Pakistan in safeguarding its sovereignty and security interests.” He emphasized that China is “closely following the development of the current situation” and reiterated Beijing’s call for an “impartial investigation as soon as possible.”

Wang stressed that conflict would not serve the “fundamental interests of India and Pakistan” nor contribute to “regional peace and stability.” Instead, he urged both nations to “exercise restraint, meet each other halfway and promote the cooling of the situation.”

During their conversation, Dar provided Wang with a detailed briefing on the circumstances surrounding the attack and the subsequent rise in tensions. According to the Chinese readout, Dar told Wang that Pakistan has consistently been firm in its efforts to fight terrorism and has “opposed taking actions that may lead to an escalation of the situation.” He also assured Wang that Pakistan remains committed to managing the situation responsibly and intends to maintain communication with China and the broader international community.

Separately, Pakistan’s foreign ministry issued a statement outlining Dar’s remarks. In the statement, Dar rejected what he described as India’s “unilateral and illegal actions” as well as “its baseless propaganda against Pakistan.” The statement also quoted Dar expressing his gratitude for China’s steadfast backing, saying he appreciated “China’s consistent and unwavering support” and reaffirmed Pakistan’s dedication to the shared vision of an “all-weather strategic cooperative partnership.”

The statement concluded by noting that “both sides reiterated their firm resolve to uphold regional peace and stability, promote mutual respect and understanding, and jointly oppose unilateralism and hegemonic policies.”

At the time of reporting, Indian officials had not issued any immediate reaction to the comments made by the foreign ministers of China and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, in a related development, Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar spoke with his newly appointed British counterpart David Lammy on Sunday. During their conversation, Jaishankar brought up the issue of the “cross-border terrorist attack at Pahalgam.” He later posted on social media that he had “underlined the importance of zero tolerance for terrorism” during the discussion.

Indian leaders have been actively engaging with their international counterparts in the wake of the attack to gather support and condemn terrorism. In the past few days, both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Jaishankar have spoken with several world leaders, including US President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. These conversations have largely focused on securing international condemnation of the attack and garnering expressions of solidarity with India.

The terror attack at Pahalgam has once again exposed the fragile nature of the relationship between India and Pakistan, which has often been marred by mutual distrust and violent incidents. Efforts by international players, particularly close allies like China and influential nations like the United States and the United Kingdom, are likely to play a critical role in shaping the course of events in the coming weeks.

China’s call for an “impartial investigation” aligns with its longstanding approach of urging dialogue and restraint between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. However, Beijing’s strong reiteration of its support for Pakistan’s security concerns underscores the depth of the China-Pakistan strategic relationship, often described as an “all-weather” partnership by both sides.

Observers note that India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, a pact that has survived several wars between the two nations, marks a significant escalation. The treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has been a rare symbol of cooperation between India and Pakistan despite their deep-seated animosities. Its suspension could have far-reaching consequences, not just for bilateral ties but for regional water security as well.

Pakistan’s warning that halting river waters would be an “act of war” further complicates the situation, increasing the risk of direct confrontation. The move to shut down airspace and suspend trade also signals a hardening of positions on both sides, making diplomatic de-escalation more urgent than ever.

For now, the world’s attention remains fixed on South Asia, with China, the United States, and other key players closely monitoring how events unfold. The coming days will likely determine whether the crisis can be contained or whether it escalates into a broader conflict, something both countries and the international community are keen to avoid.

Trump and Zelenskyy Hold Private Meeting at Vatican Amid Global Attention

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met privately inside St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, the site where Pope Francis’s funeral drew dozens of world leaders. Although the exact details of their conversation remain unclear, Zelenskyy expressed optimism about the exchange in a post on X. He described it as a “good meeting” and emphasized that it was a “very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results.” In the same post, Zelenskyy highlighted his aspirations for “results on everything we covered,” mentioning crucial objectives such as achieving a “full and unconditional ceasefire,” ensuring the “lives of our people” are safeguarded, and establishing a “reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out.”

According to a White House spokesperson speaking to CNN, the two leaders “met privately today and had a very productive discussion,” and the conversation reportedly lasted around 15 minutes. Both Trump and Zelenskyy agreed that further talks would continue, signaling an opening for more discussions moving forward.

Meanwhile, broader questions linger regarding the overall status of U.S. efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine. Trump provided an update on the progress of peace negotiations through a post on Truth Social Friday, declaring that the work towards reaching a deal between Ukraine and Russia is “going smoothly.” This comes as frustration among U.S. leadership has grown, with some officials voicing impatience over the prolonged conflict. Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed clear dissatisfaction, warning that the United States would consider withdrawing from the talks if meaningful progress does not materialize soon. Rubio stated bluntly, “if it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on.”

Reporters later asked Trump about Rubio’s statement, and he responded forcefully. Trump made it clear that if either side became a roadblock to the negotiation process, he would not hesitate to walk away. “We’re just going to say: ‘You’re foolish. You’re fools. You’re horrible people,’ and we’re going to just take a pass,” Trump said, signaling a hardline stance should the talks stall.

Trump also took the opportunity to pressure Zelenskyy on another unresolved issue. Using Truth Social on Friday, Trump urged the Ukrainian president to finalize the minerals deal between Ukraine and the United States, a deal that has been stalled for months despite Zelenskyy indicating readiness to sign it back in March. Trump’s pressure highlighted that economic agreements remain entwined with broader political negotiations between the two countries.

Adding another layer of complexity to the negotiations, Trump made controversial remarks about Crimea during an interview with TIME magazine, given Tuesday and published Friday. He indicated that the contested region of Crimea would “stay with Russia,” a position that Zelenskyy and Ukrainian officials strongly oppose. Trump asserted, “Zelenskyy understands that, and everybody understands that it’s been with them for a long time,” seemingly downplaying Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea.

The president further elaborated on the evolving stance of Russian President Vladimir Putin during an interaction with reporters on Thursday. Trump revealed that Putin has shown a willingness to make substantial compromises to end the conflict. According to Trump, Putin “no longer wants the whole country,” suggesting a shift in Russia’s territorial ambitions. Trump characterized these changes as “pretty big concessions” on Putin’s part, portraying them as a possible opening for a negotiated settlement.

The significance of Saturday’s meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy is heightened by their contentious history. It marked the first time the two leaders had met face-to-face since their heated Oval Office exchange back in February. During that earlier confrontation, tensions had reached a boiling point after Zelenskyy expressed deep skepticism about Putin’s reliability in adhering to any potential ceasefire agreement.

In response to Zelenskyy’s concerns, Vice President JD Vance criticized the Ukrainian leader, accusing him of attempting to “litigate” the ongoing conflict “in front of the American media.” Vance’s remarks suggested frustration with what he viewed as Zelenskyy’s public handling of sensitive negotiations.

Trump, for his part, reacted angrily during the February meeting. Raising his voice, he lashed out at Zelenskyy, accusing him of “gambling with World War III” by being inflexible and mistrustful in the peace discussions. Trump even threatened at that point to withdraw entirely from the Ukraine-Russia talks, a dramatic move that would have reshaped the diplomatic landscape significantly.

Since that tense confrontation, both Trump and Zelenskyy had kept their distance from one another until their Vatican meeting. Saturday’s conversation offered a chance to reset their relationship, though it remains to be seen whether it will lead to substantive breakthroughs on any of the issues they discussed.

While Zelenskyy’s post on X suggested a sense of cautious optimism about the outcome, with hopes pinned on achieving tangible results, the broader environment remains challenging. Many factors complicate the path to a lasting peace, from lingering distrust between Russia and Ukraine to political calculations within the United States itself.

Trump’s dual messaging—calling the peace efforts “going smoothly” while at the same time warning about the dangers of recalcitrant parties—reflects the delicate balancing act required in such high-stakes diplomacy. His remarks about Crimea also point to a potential point of friction that could derail negotiations if not handled carefully.

Meanwhile, the minerals deal remains a critical side issue that could either strengthen ties between Washington and Kyiv or become another stumbling block if left unresolved. Trump’s public prodding of Zelenskyy on this matter underscores the mix of political, economic, and military considerations shaping the U.S. approach to the Ukraine conflict.

In the background, the pressure continues to mount for some kind of resolution. As Secretary of State Rubio’s comments made clear, patience is wearing thin among American leaders. Should significant progress fail to materialize soon, the United States might reassess its commitment to the current negotiation process.

For now, Trump and Zelenskyy’s brief yet significant meeting at the Vatican has renewed some hope that the two sides may find common ground. Whether this “very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic,” as Zelenskyy described it, will truly mark a turning point remains an open question. However, both leaders appear, at least for now, to remain engaged in the search for a solution.

Deadliest Kashmir Attack Since 2019 Triggers Political and Military Ripples Across India and Pakistan

The militant assault that left at least 26 tourists dead in Pahalgam on Tuesday has emerged as the bloodiest attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019. Unlike previous attacks primarily aimed at security forces, this one targeted innocent civilians vacationing in one of India’s most scenic regions. The brutality and symbolism of this strike go beyond the death toll—it marks a direct hit on the fragile image of peace and normalcy that India has worked to promote in the disputed territory.

The attack’s timing and location are significant. Pahalgam, known for its tranquil beauty and appeal to tourists, became the scene of a violent ambush that not only killed civilians but also shattered public confidence. For many analysts, the event highlights how volatile the situation remains in Kashmir, a region claimed in full by both India and Pakistan, yet governed in parts by each.

India’s reaction was swift. In a show of political and diplomatic muscle, Delhi responded by shutting down the main border crossing, suspending a crucial water-sharing agreement, and expelling Pakistani diplomats. More importantly, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh assured the nation of a strong response, pledging action against not only the perpetrators but also those orchestrating such “nefarious acts” from behind the scenes.

Analysts largely agree that some form of military retaliation is all but certain. What remains uncertain is the scale, method, and consequences of such a response. “We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” said military historian Srinath Raghavan to the BBC. “It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”

Raghavan was referencing India’s significant retaliatory actions in 2016 and 2019. After 19 Indian soldiers were killed in the 2016 Uri attack, India conducted what it termed “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control (LoC), targeting militant bases in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In 2019, the deadly Pulwama attack, which killed more than 40 paramilitary personnel, prompted Indian airstrikes on an alleged terrorist training camp in Balakot, marking India’s first air incursion deep into Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan retaliated with air raids, and the two nations briefly engaged in an aerial dogfight, resulting in the capture of an Indian pilot. While both sides demonstrated their military strength, they ultimately avoided a full-scale war.

Following these high-tension moments, a ceasefire agreement along the LoC was reached in 2021, which has largely held despite sporadic militant violence in Indian-administered Kashmir. But the recent attack, given its high casualty count and targeting of civilians, could test that uneasy truce.

Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy expert, stated that this incident could provoke a military response from India, especially if any degree of Pakistani involvement—real or perceived—is found. “The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully,” Kugelman told the BBC. “Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”

When it comes to India’s options, covert operations provide plausible deniability but may not satisfy the domestic political need to assertively reestablish deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany. Clary identifies two primary avenues India could pursue. One is a resumption of cross-border firing, signaling the possible breakdown of the 2021 ceasefire. The other is more dramatic: airstrikes or even cruise missile attacks akin to the 2019 Balakot action.

“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Clary told the BBC, pointing to the broader geopolitical implications.

The nuclear dimension of India-Pakistan relations cannot be ignored. Both countries possess nuclear weapons, a factor that exerts a restraining influence on escalation but simultaneously increases the stakes of any miscalculation. “Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint—they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp,” Raghavan observed.

He drew parallels with recent conflicts such as those between Israel and Iran, where limited strikes were followed by attempts at de-escalation. However, he cautioned that such scenarios are inherently risky. “The risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”

Kugelman, reflecting on the 2019 Pulwama episode, noted, “Each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation.” But he warned that India must carefully balance the political and strategic gains of a retaliatory move with the possibility of a deeper and more destructive conflict.

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, echoed similar thoughts. He suggested that India may consider another round of limited “surgical strikes” similar to those in 2016. “The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Haqqani said in an interview with the BBC.

However, he also pointed out the risks of such a strategy. “Such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee-jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever course India chooses in response to this tragedy, the path forward remains treacherous. Any action may spiral into further violence, pushing the already tenuous peace in the region even farther out of reach. At the same time, India must grapple with internal questions about how such an attack could occur in what is considered one of the most secure and monitored areas.

“That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse—especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”

As tension rises and decisions loom, both nations are left navigating a perilous landscape where every move could have profound consequences—not only for regional stability but also for the lives of millions caught in the crossfire.

IMF Warns of Sharp Global Slowdown Amid Trump Tariffs and Economic Uncertainty

The global economy is expected to experience a significant deceleration largely due to the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the lingering uncertainty surrounding them, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced on Tuesday.

According to the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook, worldwide economic growth is now projected to be only 2.8 percent for the current year. This marks a noticeable downgrade from the 3.3 percent growth forecast the Fund had issued in January. The outlook doesn’t improve much in the near future either. By 2026, global growth is anticipated to reach just 3 percent—again, a downgrade from the earlier estimate of 3.3 percent.

Both the United States and China, the two largest economies in the world, are facing notable slowdowns, the report stated. The United States is expected to grow by only 1.8 percent this year. That’s a significant drop from the IMF’s previous forecast of 2.7 percent and is also a full percentage point lower than the U.S. growth rate recorded in 2024. While the IMF does not foresee a recession for the United States, it has raised the probability of one occurring this year from 25 percent to approximately 40 percent.

Meanwhile, China’s economic prospects are also dimming. The IMF now expects China’s economy to grow by 4 percent in both 2025 and 2026. This figure represents a reduction of about half a percentage point from the IMF’s earlier predictions for the country.

Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s chief economist, commented on the broader implications of these shifts in global economic momentum. “We are entering a new era,” he said. “This global economic system that has operated for the last eighty years is being reset.”

In essence, the IMF’s updated projections paint a picture of a world grappling with the consequences of rising trade barriers and policy uncertainty. These changes are not isolated to one country or region, but rather reflect a broader transformation in the underlying dynamics of the global economy.

The IMF’s warning adds weight to growing concerns among economists and policymakers who have been wary of the long-term consequences of the protectionist measures enacted during Trump’s presidency. Those policies included sweeping tariffs on imports from key trade partners, including China, and led to prolonged trade tensions that shook investor confidence and disrupted global supply chains.

The Fund emphasized that the lasting effects of those tariffs continue to reverberate across the global economic landscape. They have added friction to international trade, discouraged investment, and increased costs for businesses and consumers alike. While the tariffs were initially introduced with the intention of protecting American industries and narrowing the trade deficit, the IMF’s findings suggest they have had broader negative repercussions.

According to the report, the combination of policy uncertainty and tariff-related disruptions has played a central role in weakening global output. While some of the economic deceleration may be attributed to cyclical factors, such as the natural slowing of economies after periods of rapid growth, the IMF points out that structural shifts are also underway.

The reset of the global economic system, as referenced by Gourinchas, likely points to the ongoing fragmentation of the world economy into competing blocs. With geopolitical tensions rising and countries increasingly focusing on domestic resilience, the decades-long era of globalization appears to be giving way to a more fragmented and uncertain world order.

This transformation has made it more difficult for multinational businesses to operate seamlessly across borders, slowed innovation that relies on cross-border collaboration, and increased the complexity of managing supply chains. These developments, in turn, have made it more difficult for economies to bounce back quickly after shocks.

The IMF’s data indicates that the slowdown is not just limited to the United States and China. Other economies are also experiencing reduced momentum, although the Fund did not provide specifics for every region in this particular update. The report, however, implies that the ripple effects of the U.S.-China trade tensions are being felt far and wide.

Despite these sobering projections, the IMF stopped short of predicting a global recession. While growth is slowing, it remains positive across most major economies, and there are still pockets of resilience that could help sustain moderate expansion in the near term.

Still, the IMF’s increased estimate of a 40 percent chance of a U.S. recession indicates a significant degree of caution. This revision reflects growing concern over tight monetary policies, softening consumer spending, and weakening investment trends. The economic uncertainty tied to geopolitical factors and future trade policies only adds to that caution.

The shift in the IMF’s forecast underscores the fragile nature of the current recovery phase. Many economies are still contending with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary pressures. These ongoing challenges have complicated the policy choices facing central banks and governments around the world.

Gourinchas’ remark about a reset of the global economic system highlights the broader sense of transformation that is underway. With traditional assumptions about trade, investment, and cooperation now being questioned, economic institutions and policymakers are being forced to reevaluate their approaches.

The IMF’s report is likely to intensify debates about how best to adapt to this new landscape. Questions around whether to maintain open markets or lean further into economic nationalism are becoming increasingly urgent, especially as global growth cools and inequality widens.

In conclusion, the IMF’s revised outlook signals a critical turning point for the global economy. The effects of Trump-era trade policies continue to be felt, and the uncertainty they introduced has made the path forward more complicated. As the world navigates this period of transition, the focus will be on how well countries can adapt to the new realities of a slower, more fragmented global economy.

With the global growth forecast now set at 2.8 percent for this year and 3 percent for 2026, the IMF has sent a clear message: the era of stable, predictable globalization is fading. The new chapter will likely involve more economic headwinds, tighter coordination challenges, and evolving strategies to maintain growth in a changing world.

“We are entering a new era,” Gourinchas reiterated, “This global economic system that has operated for the last eighty years is being reset.”

World Leaders Mourn Pope Francis, Recall His Legacy of Compassion, Dialogue, and Humility

Soon after the passing of Pope Francis on Monday, tributes poured in from leaders across the world who remembered the first Latin American pontiff as a spiritual beacon and a champion of the marginalized. The Pope, who was 88 years old and had been suffering from a prolonged illness, left a lasting impression on political and religious figures worldwide.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi honored Pope Francis by calling him “a beacon of compassion, humility and spiritual courage.” Reflecting on his interactions with the Pope, Modi said, “I fondly recall my meetings with him and was greatly inspired by his commitment to inclusive and all-round development. His affection for the people of India will always be cherished. May his soul find eternal peace in God’s embrace.”

From the United States, President Donald Trump also extended his condolences on his social media platform, Truth Social, stating, “Rest in Peace Pope Francis! May God Bless him and all who loved him!”

Senator J.D. Vance, currently in India on an official visit, shared a heartfelt message, recalling his last encounter with the Pope. “I just learned of the passing of Pope Francis. My heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him. I was happy to see him yesterday, though he was obviously very ill. But I’ll always remember him for the below homily he gave in the very early days of COVID. It was really quite beautiful. May God rest his soul.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni mourned deeply, writing, “The news saddens us deeply, because a great man and a great shepherd has left us.” She added, “I had the privilege of enjoying his friendship, his advice and his teachings, which never failed even in moments of trial and suffering.” She recalled his message during the Via Crucis, where he highlighted “the power of the gift, which makes everything flourish again and is capable of reconciling what in the eyes of man is irreconcilable.” Meloni praised his call for the world “to follow a path that does not destroy, but cultivates, repairs, protects.” Concluding her tribute, she said, “His teaching and his legacy will not be lost. We greet the Holy Father with hearts full of sadness, but we know that he is now in the peace of the Lord.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin also acknowledged Pope Francis’ role in fostering better relations between religious communities. In a message to Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell, Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, Putin said, “Throughout the years of his pontificate, he actively promoted the development of dialogue between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as constructive cooperation between Russia and the Holy See.” He added, “In this sad hour, I would like to convey to you and the entire Catholic clergy my words of sympathy and support.”

French President Emmanuel Macron lauded the Pope’s solidarity with the vulnerable, saying, “Throughout his pontificate Pope Francis had always sided with the most vulnerable and the most fragile, and that he did this with a lot of humility. In this time of war and brutality, he had a sense for the other, for the most fragile.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted the Pope’s global impact, stating, “Francis will be remembered for his tireless commitment to the weakest in society, to justice and reconciliation. Humility and faith in God’s mercy guided him in this.” Merz emphasized how the Pope “touched people worldwide, across denominational boundaries” and extended his thoughts to the faithful worldwide who are mourning.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog expressed his condolences, focusing on the Pope’s interfaith efforts. “I send my deepest condolences to the Christian citizens of Israel, to the Christian communities in the Holy Land, and to the entire Christian world – on the loss of their spiritual father, Pope Francis,” he wrote. Herzog praised the Pope as “a man of immense faith and great mercy,” who prioritized the poor and peace efforts. “He saw great importance in deepening ties with the Jewish world and in promoting interfaith dialogue as a way to achieve mutual understanding and respect,” Herzog said. He concluded by expressing hope that “his prayers for peace in the Middle East and the return of the kidnapped will soon be answered.”

From Argentina, Pope Francis’ homeland, President Javier Milei also shared a heartfelt message: “It is with profound sorrow that I learned this sad morning that Pope Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, passed away today and is now resting in peace.” Milei acknowledged their past disagreements but said, “Despite differences that seem minor today, having been able to know him in his goodness and wisdom was a true honor for me.”

Before his papacy, Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, served as Archbishop of Buenos Aires. During his youth, he rose through the ranks of the Jesuit order, offering spiritual guidance during Argentina’s politically difficult years, particularly the military dictatorship known as the Dirty War from 1976 to 1983.

King Charles of the United Kingdom offered a touching tribute, emphasizing the Pope’s legacy of unity and empathy. “His Holiness will be remembered for his compassion, his concern for the unity of the Church and for his tireless commitment to the common causes of all people of faith, and to those of goodwill who work for the benefit of others,” he said.

Kenyan President William Ruto praised Francis’ moral clarity and inclusive leadership. “He exemplified servant leadership through his humility, his unwavering commitment to inclusivity and justice, and his deep compassion for the poor and the vulnerable. His strong ethical and moral convictions inspired millions across the world, regardless of faith or background.”

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reflected on Francis’ longstanding support for Lebanon. “We in Lebanon, the land of diversity, feel the loss of a dear friend and a strong supporter. The late Pope always carried Lebanon in his heart and prayers, and he always called on the world to support Lebanon in its ordeal,” he said. “We will never forget his repeated calls to protect Lebanon and preserve its identity and diversity.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed gratitude for the Pope’s prayers and encouragement during challenging times. “He knew how to give hope, ease suffering through prayer, and foster unity. He prayed for peace in Ukraine and for Ukrainians,” Zelenskyy wrote. “We grieve together with Catholics and all Christians who looked to Pope Francis for spiritual support. Eternal memory!”

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr declared his deep admiration: “I love this pope. The best pope in my lifetime as far as I’m concerned.” Marcos described him as “a man of profound faith and humility,” adding, “Pope Francis led not only with wisdom but with a heart open to all, especially the poor and the forgotten.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva highlighted Francis’ commitment to justice and environmental advocacy. “Pope Francis lived and spread in his daily life the love, tolerance and solidarity that are the basis of Christian teachings,” he wrote. Citing the Pope’s alignment with the ideals of Saint Francis of Assisi, Lula said, “The Argentine, Jorge Bergoglio, tirelessly sought to bring love where there was hatred. Unity where there was discord.” Lula noted how Francis “brought the issue of climate change to the Vatican” and “vigorously criticized the economic models that led humanity to produce so many injustices.” He stressed that the Pope “always stood by those who need it most: the poor, refugees, young people, the elderly and victims of war and all forms of prejudice.” Lula concluded by noting the personal impact Francis had on him and his wife, Janja. “On the occasions when Janja and I were blessed with the opportunity to meet Pope Francis and be received by him with great affection, we were able to share our ideals of peace, equality and justice. Ideals that the world has always needed. And will always need. May God comfort those who today, all over the world, suffer the pain of this enormous loss. In his memory and in honor of his work, I decree seven days of mourning in Brazil.”

Pope Francis’ legacy as a humble servant, a spiritual reformer, and a global voice for peace will continue to resonate far beyond his time.

The World Bids Farewell to Pope Francis, A Tireless Advocate for Peace, Equality, and the Environment

The All India Catholic Union (AICU) has expressed deep sorrow over the passing of Pope Francis, remembering him as a beacon of hope and humanity in an era marked by strife, division, and environmental crisis. In a heartfelt statement released after news of his death at the Vatican, the AICU joined Catholics worldwide in mourning the loss of a spiritual leader whose unwavering commitment to peace, fraternity, and justice earned him admiration across the globe.

“We will miss a lodestar who redefined for us the love of Jesus Christ for the world, expressing it in his focus for victims of wars and climate change, of gender issues and religious, racial and ethnic hate. Above all, we have lost a friend of the laity, a friend of the poor,” said Elia Vaz, the national president of the AICU, along with other office bearers in their joint statement.

Though initially known to only a select few in Latin America, Pope Francis quickly rose from relative obscurity to global recognition after becoming the Pope. His compassionate approach, down-to-earth demeanor, and unwavering voice against injustice won him widespread affection. The world took to the way he communicated—not only his words, but also the courage with which he challenged those who perpetuated violence and hatred.

During his tenure as the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis made bold and necessary moves to reform the institution. He spearheaded efforts to clean up the Vatican’s financial systems and reduce bureaucratic red tape, bringing greater transparency and accountability to a centuries-old institution. These reforms were not just limited to internal matters; he also took significant strides in strengthening ties with other faiths, especially Islam, fostering a spirit of interfaith dialogue and cooperation.

His global outreach extended beyond religious matters. Pope Francis took clear and public stands on geopolitical issues, condemning the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. His consistent call for peace in the face of violent conflict highlighted his role not just as a religious leader but also as a global moral authority. He didn’t shy away from political controversy when lives and dignity were at stake, instead using his platform to appeal to world leaders and citizens alike to choose compassion over conflict.

The Vatican, under his leadership, also addressed the modern world’s scientific and ethical challenges. He led the Church to engage in contemporary discussions, including those on artificial intelligence, showing that faith and science can coexist and support each other in navigating an increasingly complex world. His commitment to environmental issues, particularly climate change, was one of the defining features of his papacy. Through encyclicals and public speeches, he urged both leaders and ordinary citizens to take responsibility for the planet’s health, advocating for sustainable living and protection of natural resources.

But perhaps what endeared Pope Francis most to ordinary Catholics was the personal connection he fostered with the faithful. He was not seen as a distant authority but as someone who genuinely cared for and understood the struggles of everyday believers. His Synods, particularly the one focused on the Family, invited lay participation on an unprecedented scale, allowing Catholics from around the world to feel heard and included in the Church’s future. His call to “walk together” was more than a metaphor—it was a tangible step toward making the Church more participatory and inclusive.

For women and children, regardless of their geography—be it Gaza, India, or Africa—Pope Francis was a source of support and inspiration. He broke centuries of tradition by appointing women to key roles in the Church, positions historically reserved for men. These changes were not just symbolic but represented a genuine shift toward gender inclusivity within the religious hierarchy. By giving women greater responsibility and voice in the Church, he opened doors for more balanced leadership in the future.

Young people, too, found a friend in Pope Francis. His outreach to youth through events like World Youth Day and his social media presence helped bridge the generational gap, making religion accessible and relevant in a rapidly changing world. He emphasized listening to the younger generation, valuing their insights and aspirations for a more just and compassionate society.

Even as illness gradually diminished his strength, Pope Francis showed no sign of slowing down. His energy and passion for reform remained undiminished almost until the very end. His passing leaves behind unanswered questions about what additional transformations he may have envisioned for the Church. “We will forever wonder what together reforms he had in mind, to make the Church ever more relevant in the lives of the people at this turn of history,” the AICU noted, capturing the collective sentiment of many Catholics around the world.

His legacy, however, is far from complete. The AICU and countless others in the Catholic community now look toward his successor with hope. There is an earnest desire that the momentum of change initiated by Pope Francis will not only be preserved but also expanded upon. His tenure has set a precedent—one where the Church actively engages with the pressing moral and social issues of the day while remaining rooted in compassion and humility.

As the Catholic Church enters a period of transition, the memory of Pope Francis will continue to inspire. His unwavering stance on peace, inclusivity, and care for creation has left an indelible mark not just on the Church but on humanity as a whole. His life was a testament to the belief that leadership grounded in empathy and courage can indeed transform the world.

For millions, Pope Francis was not just a Pope—he was a symbol of hope in dark times, a shepherd who walked with his flock, and a leader who never stopped believing in the goodness of humanity. As the AICU and the global community bid farewell, his vision of a more united, just, and sustainable world will live on in the hearts and actions of those he inspired.

Seven Countries Where Expats Find Happiness Without High Costs

“My old man used to say, ‘Happiness is not a matter of intensity but of balance and order and rhythm and harmony.’” This sentiment rings especially true when considering life abroad. Living overseas can feel like walking a tightrope, trying to juggle financial responsibilities with the pursuit of a fulfilling life. Yet, striking the right balance between joy and affordability isn’t as unattainable as it might seem. In fact, some countries have become expat favorites precisely because they offer both happiness and financial ease.

If you’ve ever wondered, “Where can I live happily and affordably?” then take note. Seven countries stand out where expatriates claim they are living more joyfully while also spending less. These nations offer much more than cheap beer or sunny weather. Let’s explore what makes each destination unique—and why they might be the answer to your happiness and budget goals.

Portugal

Portugal consistently ranks high among the most desirable destinations for expatriates, and it’s easy to see why. With stunning coastlines, rich history, and mouthwatering cuisine, it offers a deeply satisfying lifestyle. But what really makes Portugal shine is its affordability. Compared to many Western countries, living costs here—especially housing and food—are substantially lower.

Beyond just saving money, expats in Portugal frequently highlight the friendly locals and a slower pace of life that prioritizes family and community. “Portugal offers a quality of life that’s hard to beat without putting a massive dent in your bank account,” the original writer observes. For anyone seeking both peace of mind and financial balance, Portugal may just be the perfect fit.

Thailand

Thailand, affectionately known as the “Land of Smiles,” is a dream destination for many expats. With its ancient temples, lush landscapes, and world-famous street food, the country offers an experience unlike any other. But what makes it truly attractive is its low cost of living.

As someone who lived in a comfortable condo in Bangkok once noted, “From rent to meals, everything is surprisingly affordable.” More than that, it’s the Thai philosophy of ‘Sanuk’—the idea of finding joy in everything—that creates an uplifting atmosphere. Whether chatting with street vendors or attending local festivals, life in Thailand is filled with genuine, infectious happiness. It’s a place where both your wallet and your spirit feel full.

Mexico

Mexico is a country full of life and color, with streets often echoing with music, laughter, and celebration. While it faces its own set of challenges—including traffic congestion and certain social issues—many expats still find immense value in calling Mexico home.

The affordability of daily living is a major draw. Good food, affordable housing, inexpensive healthcare – it’s all there for you to seize . Yet, the heart of Mexico lies in its people. Their warmth and resilience stand out, and integrating into local life often feels effortless. The nation’s rich traditions and welcoming communities make it a compelling choice for anyone ready to embrace a country that is “not perfect, but beautifully real and economically viable.”

Vietnam

Vietnam is one of Southeast Asia’s hidden gems, blending centuries-old traditions with modern growth. From bustling markets to peaceful rice fields, the country offers a visually and culturally rich experience. Better yet, it’s incredibly affordable.

Housing, food, transportation – it’s all remarkably affordable, emphasizing how budget-friendly life can be. But the appeal goes beyond numbers. Vietnamese communities are closely knit, and the country’s vibrant culture encourages joy and camaraderie. “Life here is lived in vibrant color and high volume,” making it ideal for those seeking both economic comfort and emotional connection.

Indonesia

Indonesia, a sprawling archipelago with over 17,000 islands, offers a mix of cultures and cost-effective living that’s hard to resist. Whether you’re in the heart of Jakarta or relaxing in a Balinese villa, life here is considerably cheaper than in most Western countries.

Affordability aside, Indonesia’s cultural ethos stands out. “The Indonesians have a term called ‘gotong royong’, which refers to the spirit of mutual aid and cooperation,” the article explains. This communal spirit fosters a warm and inclusive environment for newcomers. Expats are especially drawn to Bali, known as the “Island of the Gods,” where the cost of living is low and the quality of life is high. For those in search of both tropical beauty and financial ease, Indonesia checks all the boxes.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica, nestled in Central America, is a country that lives by the motto “Pura Vida,” or “pure life.” It’s more than just a phrase; it’s a way of life that reflects a deep appreciation for well-being, nature, and community. Living costs—ranging from rent to groceries to healthcare—are modest, allowing residents to live comfortably on a budget.

More importantly, the spirit of the Costa Rican people, known as “Ticos,” enhances the overall living experience. The article shares a touching anecdote: “I remember reading about an expat who fell ill and was touched by how the local community came together to support him.” Such acts of kindness demonstrate that Costa Rica is a place where people genuinely care for each other. If you’re looking for a lifestyle rooted in empathy, simplicity, and sustainability, Costa Rica is a strong contender.

Malaysia

Malaysia is a unique blend of tradition and modernity. Skyscrapers rise beside temples, and bustling cities like Kuala Lumpur offer all the amenities of the West at a fraction of the cost. “The cost of living is significantly lower here,” the article points out, making it a haven for expats watching their budget.

What makes Malaysia particularly welcoming is its community-oriented culture. “The locals live by the concept of ‘gotong-royong’, a spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance,” notes the original writer. This cultural value makes it easy for expats to integrate and feel at home. Additionally, the country’s high-quality and affordable healthcare system means that wellness doesn’t come with a hefty price tag. In Malaysia, happiness isn’t fleeting—it’s part of everyday life.

Final Thoughts

The idea of living abroad, in a place where you’re both happier and financially stable, may seem like a far-off fantasy. But as these seven countries prove, it’s very much within reach. “Remember, it’s not just about the cost of living. It’s also about the richness of life.”

From Portugal’s coastal charm to Vietnam’s spirited streets, each destination offers its own unique version of happiness and affordability. And while every country has its quirks and challenges, the warmth of the people, the sense of belonging, and the joy of simple living are what truly matter.

Choosing the right country to call home isn’t just about money. It’s about finding a place where your heart feels full and your life feels complete—without emptying your bank account in the process.

Majority of Americans Now View Israel Unfavorably, With Younger Voters Driving Shift

More than half of adults in the United States now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, and this shift is especially pronounced among younger generations across both political parties. These findings come from a new Pew Research Center survey released on April 8, highlighting a growing change in how Americans perceive the U.S. ally.

According to the survey, 53% of Americans now say they have a “somewhat” or “very unfavorable” opinion of Israel. This marks a significant 11-point rise in negative views since Pew last asked the same question in March 2022.

The increasing dissatisfaction comes after a period of intense conflict in the Middle East. In response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack that killed 1,200 Israelis, Israel launched a powerful military operation in Gaza, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 50,000 Palestinians, most of whom were women and children.

The poll also shows a stark rise in those expressing “very unfavorable” views of Israel, with that number nearly doubling from 10% in 2022 to 19% in 2025. The political divide remains clear: 69% of Democrats now express unfavorable opinions of Israel compared to 37% of Republicans.

“In some sense this marks the culmination of a process by which Israel is no longer perceived as David, but as Goliath,” said David Myers, a professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles. “There’s been a shift in the perception of who’s the powerful and who’s the powerless, who’s the oppressor and who’s the oppressed.”

The survey, conducted between March 24 and March 30 and based on interviews with 3,605 adults, could represent a turning point in U.S. public opinion regarding Israel.

Ian Lustick, a retired political scientist from the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on the Middle East, emphasized how this data signals that the U.S. may be shifting closer to international perspectives on Israel. “Now we’re seeing that the United States is more in alignment with the rest of the world on this issue,” he said.

The generational divide is particularly striking. Among Republicans aged 18 to 49, 50% now hold negative views of Israel—up from 35% in 2022. Just three years ago, younger Republicans viewed Israel much more positively, with a 63% to 35% margin in favor. That has now reversed.

Young Democrats are even more critical. In 2022, 62% of Democrats under 50 expressed unfavorable views of Israel. By 2025, that number had risen to 71%.

“What is most interesting about these numbers is that it’s no longer a shift that’s happening on only one side of the political spectrum,” said Yousef Munayyer, director of the Palestine/Israel Program at the Arab Center, a Washington-based think tank focused on U.S. policy in the Arab world.

“What younger voters are seeing happening in Gaza — and they have been seeing it for some time now — they don’t want to be associated with that,” Munayyer added. “It’s not just something that they don’t want to be associated with as Republicans, but something that they don’t want to be associated with as Americans.”

Views also vary sharply along religious lines. Jewish Americans and white evangelical Christians show the most favorable opinions of Israel, at 73% and 72% respectively. On the other end of the spectrum, Muslim Americans hold the most negative views, with 81% expressing disapproval. Other groups showing strong disapproval include the religiously unaffiliated (69%) and Catholics (53%). White mainline Protestants are almost evenly split in their views of Israel.

On the topic of Israeli leadership, 52% of Americans say they have little or no confidence in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ability to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

When it comes to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict, Americans are divided along political and religious lines. Democrats are more optimistic than Republicans about the feasibility of a two-state solution, with 56% of Democrats saying it is possible compared to only 36% of Republicans. Just under half (47%) of American Jews believe in the viability of a two-state solution. Interestingly, Muslim Americans are slightly more hopeful, with 56% expressing belief that such a solution could be achieved.

The war in Gaza is of significant personal importance to 93% of Jewish Americans and 68% of Muslim Americans, according to the poll.

However, American Jews remain divided on the question of President Donald Trump’s stance toward Israel. Among them, 36% believe Trump favors Israelis too much, while 43% say he is maintaining the right balance. Unsurprisingly, a vast majority—70%—of Muslim Americans think Trump favors Israelis excessively.

Two months ago, Trump floated a controversial idea that the U.S. could take over Gaza, relocate about 2 million Palestinians, and transform the war-torn territory into a resort area. However, public reception to this proposal has been largely skeptical: 38% of Americans say they do not believe the president will seriously pursue such a plan. Trump appeared to backtrack on the idea during a recent White House meeting with Netanyahu, referring to it as “a concept that I had.”

Ian Lustick emphasized that the growing divergence between public opinion and U.S. foreign policy on Israel is evident. “Policies toward Israel by the government have actually gone in the other direction, of almost obsequious support for an extreme far-right government in Israel,” Lustick noted. He added that this trend is unlikely to shift anytime soon. “American foreign policy on this issue is not driven by public opinion. It’s driven by domestic political calculations, meaning money, not votes.”

The margin of error for the Pew poll is plus or minus two percentage points.

This recent survey paints a picture of a changing America, where public sentiment about Israel is evolving rapidly and becoming more polarized. The widening generational and political divides suggest that future U.S. policy decisions regarding Israel may face increasing scrutiny, especially from younger and more diverse segments of the population.

Trade War Turmoil: How the U.S.-China Economic Clash Is Shaking Global Tourism

The intensifying trade war between the United States and China has entered a perilous stage, with soaring tariffs leading to widespread economic damage and turbulence in global markets. Among the industries suffering most is international tourism, now caught in the crossfire of policy shifts and aggressive tariff increases. The escalating dispute is not only reshaping trade dynamics but also significantly disrupting air travel, hospitality, and consumer spending linked to global tourism. With the U.S. and China—two of the world’s economic giants—locked in an economic standoff, the broader travel industry is grappling with heightened costs and plummeting demand.

The latest twist in the trade war sees the U.S. threatening to hike tariffs on Chinese imports to a stunning 104%. This move, while aimed at economic leverage, has triggered consequences far beyond trade, affecting airlines, cruise lines, tech firms, and hotels. These industries now face severe uncertainty as supply chains tighten and operating costs rise. The travel ecosystem, heavily reliant on cross-border mobility and stable economic relations, is particularly vulnerable to this conflict.

The travel sector is already witnessing a pullback in global mobility, driven by rising costs and lowered demand. Chinese tourists, among the top international travelers, are beginning to rethink trips to the U.S. as tariffs increase the price of goods and services tied to travel. Major American cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which rely significantly on Chinese tourism, could see sharp declines in international visitors. Higher costs on items like electronics—popular purchases among tourists—further discourage travel.

“US states including New York, Michigan, California, Nevada, Florida, and more face tourism declines due to Trump’s tariffs,” as industry observers note, highlighting the widespread economic implications.

Meanwhile, American travelers eyeing China are similarly dissuaded by inflated prices on goods and services caused by reciprocal tariffs. As duties on travel-related products like smartphones, luggage, and apparel increase, international travel becomes less appealing. This drop in tourism between the U.S. and China, once one of the most profitable travel routes, could deal a major blow to airlines, hotels, and tour operators.

In response, travel agencies are adjusting their marketing approaches, shifting attention to regions less impacted by trade tensions. Long-haul flights and cruise packages between the U.S. and China, now more expensive, are facing diminished demand.

The airline industry, too, is under pressure. U.S. carriers could see significant hikes in operating costs due to tariffs on Chinese aircraft parts, including avionics and engines. These increased costs are expected to translate into higher ticket prices, affecting consumer demand. Airlines heavily dependent on U.S.-China routes—such as American, Delta, and United—are especially vulnerable, as weakening demand for both business and leisure travel could shrink revenues.

Airfares for international flights are already under strain from inflation and surging fuel prices. Tariffs add a new layer of financial pressure. Budget airlines may attract more cost-conscious travelers, but their own narrow profit margins make survival in this environment difficult.

The technology sector, at the center of the trade war, is also disrupting travel. Tariffs on Chinese electronics mean travelers can expect to pay more for tech gadgets such as smartphones, cameras, and laptops—tools that are essential for modern travel. “The cost of travel-related tech products like smartphones, cameras, laptops, and GPS devices could skyrocket,” experts warn, pointing out that both leisure and business travelers will be hit.

Airlines, cruise companies, and hotels depend on affordable electronics for operations—like digital check-ins, in-flight entertainment, and mobile booking systems. As costs rise, these services may become less accessible or more expensive, directly impacting the travel experience. Chinese tech firms like Huawei, Xiaomi, and Lenovo are central suppliers of such equipment, and higher tariffs could severely strain the hospitality sector’s ability to maintain services.

For the cruise industry, the trade war brings both supply chain issues and escalating costs. Tariffs on Chinese-made materials used in shipbuilding and maintenance can lead to construction delays and pricier cruises. As cruise lines struggle with increased expenses, they’re likely to pass these onto consumers, discouraging bookings and reducing passenger volume. “With fewer deals on cruise vacations, travelers could opt for land-based travel,” a shift that would cut deeply into cruise revenues.

Chinese tourists—a rapidly growing customer base for cruises—may be especially affected. The increased costs and travel deterrents from tariffs make it less likely that they’ll book cruises in North America, further dampening industry prospects.

Hotels are similarly burdened. Rising prices caused by tariffs and a weakening Chinese economy have prompted tourists to reconsider travel plans, especially to major U.S. cities where Chinese visitors usually spend big. At the same time, hotels that rely on Chinese imports for furniture, electronics, and other essentials now face increased costs, pushing room rates higher.

“As more tourism-dependent cities face rising prices for accommodations and diminished demand, the hotel industry will experience a downturn,” market analysts predict.

Across travel, tech, cruise, and hotel sectors, the long-term pain is just beginning. Businesses are being forced to rethink strategies as costs climb and customers pull back. As tariffs alter supply chains and reduce affordability, travel will likely become more expensive and less predictable. The 104% tariff on Chinese imports now being considered threatens to choke off critical supplies—especially electronics—used throughout the travel industry.

Global markets are reeling from the economic uncertainty this trade war has unleashed. Stock markets are down, currencies are fluctuating, and financial forecasts have turned grim. Asian economies, heavily reliant on exports, are particularly exposed, and nations like Vietnam and Cambodia are bracing for additional fallout. As Chinese exports to the U.S. shrink, other countries fear secondary effects on their own tourism sectors.

“The result? Less disposable income for consumers, fewer international tourists, and a prolonged period of economic volatility,” say industry experts. Smartphone prices, for example, are surging, which could reduce the use of travel apps and disrupt digital services that many tourism companies depend on.

The mounting instability is leading investors to back away from tourism-related stocks, anticipating long-term damage. With global travelers hesitant to spend, tourism operators are seeing a sharp decline in bookings, particularly in Asia and Europe.

China’s retaliation—already involving tariffs up to 34%—has further clouded the outlook for U.S. tourism. Chinese tourists, who make up a large portion of foreign spending in the U.S., are now less likely to visit. Major cities that depend on these travelers face significant revenue losses. Additional barriers, such as stricter visa and customs policies, only add to the deterrent.

Tourism professionals are preparing for a new reality where the intersection of geopolitics and economics continues to dictate business outcomes. “With increased tariffs, uncertainty, and economic pain affecting both consumers and businesses alike, the global tourism industry faces a turbulent road ahead,” notes a senior travel strategist.

The conflict between the U.S. and China is more than a trade dispute—it’s a global economic event reshaping tourism. With both countries locked in a power struggle over market share, tourism becomes collateral damage in a fight that shows no signs of ending. The global travel industry must now adapt to survive, with cost pressures mounting, consumer confidence wavering, and long-term stability increasingly out of reach.

For now, the only certainty is that uncertainty will persist—and the travel world may never look quite the same again.

US-China Trade War Escalates, Raising Fears of Global Economic Fallout

The prospect of a full-scale trade war between the United States and China has intensified after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs exceeding 100% on imports from China. In response, China has vowed to retaliate rather than yield to what it perceives as U.S. intimidation. It has announced a significant increase in tariffs on American products, raising them from 34% to 84%.

Beijing’s firm stance was reflected in its declaration that it would “fight to the end,” dismissing any notion of surrender in the face of pressure from Washington.

The key question now looming over global markets and policymakers is: what does this deepening trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies mean for the broader international economy?

In 2024, the trade volume in goods between the U.S. and China reached an estimated $585 billion. However, the trade was heavily skewed in China’s favor, with the U.S. importing approximately $440 billion worth of goods from China, while China imported only $145 billion from the U.S. This disparity resulted in a U.S. trade deficit with China of $295 billion—roughly 1% of the American economy. While this is substantial, it is far less than the $1 trillion deficit figure that Trump has repeatedly cited in public appearances.

Tariffs on Chinese goods are not new. During his first term, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on China, which were largely maintained and even expanded under President Joe Biden. These trade measures contributed to a sharp drop in the proportion of Chinese imports into the U.S.—from 21% of total American imports in 2016 to just 13% in 2023. This data suggests a reduced dependency on Chinese imports, but experts argue that the shift might be more superficial than structural.

Analysts have observed that many Chinese exports have merely been redirected through other Asian nations to avoid U.S. tariffs. A notable example comes from the solar energy industry. In 2018, Trump imposed a 30% tariff on Chinese-made solar panels. However, by 2023, the U.S. Commerce Department discovered that Chinese manufacturers were circumventing these tariffs by assembling solar panels in countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, before shipping them to the U.S. as if they were locally produced.

The Trump administration’s new round of “reciprocal” tariffs now targets goods originating from these countries, meaning that many items ultimately manufactured in China will become even more expensive for U.S. consumers.

The trade relationship involves a wide range of products. On the American side, top exports to China in 2024 included soybeans, a vital food source for China’s estimated 440 million pigs. The U.S. also exported pharmaceuticals and petroleum to China.

Conversely, Chinese exports to the U.S. predominantly included electronics, toys, computers, and a significant number of batteries essential to electric vehicles. Smartphones represented the largest category, accounting for 9% of total U.S. imports from China. Many of these devices are manufactured in China for U.S.-based firms such as Apple.

The heavy U.S. tariffs on China have contributed to a sharp drop in Apple’s market valuation. Over the past month alone, the company’s stock price has declined by 20%. This is attributed to the growing cost burden of producing and importing Chinese-manufactured electronics, including Apple’s flagship iPhones.

Previously, the Trump administration had already imposed a 20% tariff on a broad range of Chinese imports. But with the latest hike to 104%, the financial impact on U.S. consumers and businesses could be as much as five times higher. Likewise, China’s counter-tariffs on American imports will lead to price hikes for Chinese consumers, potentially hurting domestic purchasing power.

However, tariffs are just one tool in this escalating economic rivalry. Both nations possess other means to undermine each other’s strategic industries. China, for instance, plays a dominant role in refining essential industrial metals like copper, lithium, and rare earth elements. It could hinder U.S. access to these materials, which are critical for sectors ranging from electronics to defense.

Beijing has already begun implementing such measures. It has restricted exports of germanium and gallium, two rare materials used in thermal imaging and radar systems—a move widely interpreted as a response to U.S. pressure.

Meanwhile, the U.S. may look to escalate its ongoing technological embargo on China. Initiated during Biden’s presidency, this policy restricts Chinese access to cutting-edge microchips used in artificial intelligence and other advanced applications. China still lacks the ability to manufacture these chips domestically, making it vulnerable to such export restrictions.

Adding to the potential conflict, Trump’s trade advisor, Peter Navarro, recently suggested that the U.S. could pressure other countries like Mexico, Vietnam, and Cambodia to limit their trade with China if they wish to retain access to the American market.

These developments have major implications for the rest of the world. The U.S. and China together account for an estimated 43% of global economic output in 2024, according to the International Monetary Fund. A severe trade war that dampens growth in either country—or plunges them into recession—could significantly slow the pace of global economic development.

International investment may also take a hit as uncertainty grows over supply chains and market access. But the consequences extend even further.

China’s domestic consumption remains far below its industrial output. With an annual goods surplus nearing $1 trillion, China is exporting far more than it imports. Much of this surplus is supported by state subsidies and financial assistance to favored firms, allowing them to produce goods—like steel—at below-market costs.

Should Chinese products be blocked from entering the U.S. due to high tariffs, Chinese companies may try to dump excess inventory into other markets, undercutting local producers. While this could benefit consumers in some countries through lower prices, it would pose a significant threat to domestic manufacturing industries and employment in other regions.

In the UK, the lobby group UK Steel has voiced concerns over this possibility. They fear that excess Chinese steel could flood the British market, potentially harming local industries and threatening thousands of jobs.

In the broader picture, most economists believe that a comprehensive U.S.-China trade war would deliver a severe blow to the global economy. The combination of higher prices, disrupted supply chains, and falling investment could push several economies toward slower growth—or worse.

As the world watches the unfolding trade standoff between Washington and Beijing, the hope is that cooler heads will prevail. But for now, both sides appear entrenched, and the rest of the world may end up paying the price.

China Hits Back with 34% Tariffs on US Imports, Escalating Trade War

China has announced that it will enforce reciprocal 34% tariffs on all imports from the United States starting April 10, following through on its vow to retaliate after President Donald Trump intensified the ongoing global trade war.

Earlier this week, Trump imposed a new 34% tariff on all Chinese products entering the US. This decision is expected to drastically shift the dynamics of US-China relations and exacerbate already tense trade disagreements between the world’s two leading economies.

“This practice of the US is not in line with international trade rules, seriously undermines China’s legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice,” the State Council Tariff Commission of China said in a statement announcing its retaliatory move.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has already implemented two rounds of 10% additional tariffs on all goods imported from China. According to the White House, these tariffs were introduced to curb the flow of illicit fentanyl from China to the US. When combined with existing duties, Chinese products are now facing a total tariff burden of more than 54% when arriving at American ports.

In contrast to previous measured responses, China’s latest round of retaliatory tariffs marks a broader and more aggressive reaction. While past responses from Beijing included targeted tariffs on US exports such as agricultural goods and energy, as well as regulatory actions against American businesses, this new round signals a significant escalation.

“This is a significant escalation of China’s response,” wrote Leah Fahy, a China economist at Capital Economics. “Xi Jinping appears to feel that China’s economy is strong enough to withstand whatever Trump throws at it next.”

The newly announced US tariffs are steeper than many experts had predicted and have the potential to fundamentally alter the trade relationship between Washington and Beijing. With nearly $500 billion in trade hanging in the balance, the new measures could disrupt long-standing economic ties that developed over decades of interdependence.

China unveiled its countermeasures on Friday, during a major national holiday known as the Tomb Sweeping Festival. These steps included adding 11 American companies to its “unreliable entity list,” which targets businesses seen as threats to Chinese interests. Some of the affected companies include drone manufacturers. Additionally, 16 US firms will now face export restrictions, barring them from acquiring Chinese-made dual-use items.

China’s Commerce Ministry also announced new anti-dumping investigations targeting CT X-ray tubes imported from the US and India, marking a direct challenge to both countries’ medical equipment exports.

Furthermore, China revealed new export controls on seven types of rare-earth minerals, such as samarium, gadolinium, and terbium, effectively limiting their supply to the US. These elements are critical in high-tech industries and national defense systems.

The market reaction to China’s announcement was swift and severe. US stocks fell sharply on Friday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted by more than 1,000 points, or 2.7%. The S&P 500 dropped over 3%, while the Nasdaq Composite slid by 3.5%. European and UK markets were similarly affected, with major indices falling more than 3%, marking their worst performance in years.

Investors had been anxious all week. On Thursday, the Dow fell by over 1,600 points, nearly 4%, while the S&P 500 lost close to 5%, and the Nasdaq plunged almost 6%. These declines represent the steepest one-day losses in about five years, comparable to the market turmoil during the COVID-19 pandemic.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the economic impact. “Markets are crashing,” he said on Friday, addressing reporters at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels. However, he added, “the markets will adjust.”

“Businesses around the world, including in trade and global trade, they just need to know what the rules are. Once they know what the rules are, they will adjust to those rules,” Rubio said.

Global investors are increasingly concerned that this spiraling trade war could push not only the US but also the global economy into a recession.

“By matching Trump’s tariffs, China is no longer nibbling at the edges — it’s mirroring US actions head-on. This is not blind retaliation, but a clear recalibration,” said Craig Singleton, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, based in the US.

Singleton pointed out that China is targeting politically sensitive sectors, including agriculture, industrial goods, and rare earth materials, as well as expanding the “unreliable entity list.” Despite these aggressive measures, China appears to be keeping its broader economy relatively open.

Meanwhile, companies that rely on supply chains deeply embedded in China are facing a complex and difficult situation. These businesses must now navigate not only the new US tariffs on Chinese imports but also tariffs affecting other Asian nations due to the broad nature of Trump’s policies.

The timing of these tariffs presents additional challenges for China, which is already grappling with a slowing domestic economy. In recent weeks, Chinese officials have ramped up efforts to stimulate internal consumption in preparation for the anticipated impact of an expanded trade conflict.

Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie Group, noted in a research note that Trump has effectively raised the average tariff on Chinese goods to 69%. When Trump began his current term in January, the average rate was around 15%.

Hu estimates the latest escalation could cut up to 2.5 percentage points from China’s economic growth for 2025. “The impact could manifest itself through multiple channels such as falling US demand for Chinese goods, the potential global economic slowdown and the hit on export re-routing,” Hu wrote.

Export re-routing involves exporting goods to a third country instead of directly to their intended destination, often to avoid tariffs. This strategy was employed during Trump’s first term, with countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America acting as intermediaries for Chinese exports.

To achieve its growth target of approximately 5% in 2025, China will need to adopt strategies to boost internal demand and cushion the blow of these external pressures, according to Hu.

In summary, the US-China trade war has entered a more aggressive phase. With both sides enacting sweeping tariff increases and expanding their retaliatory toolkits, the economic consequences could be far-reaching. The coming months will likely test the resilience of global markets, international supply chains, and the political resolve of both governments.

Trump Imposes New Tariffs, Raising Costs on Cars, Alcohol, and More

US President Donald Trump has implemented a series of tariffs—import taxes—on billions of dollars’ worth of goods entering the country.

On Wednesday, Trump declared a national economic emergency, announcing that all imported goods would face a minimum tariff of 10%. For nations he considers the “worst offenders,” the tariffs could be as high as 50%. The 10% tariffs are set to take effect on April 5, while the higher rates will be implemented on April 9.

Currently, Canada and Mexico are exempt from these tariffs, though both nations—along with China—were already subject to certain trade restrictions. Additionally, the Trump administration has expanded existing tariffs on steel and aluminum to include beer and empty cans, which could significantly impact Canada and Mexico.

Furthermore, beginning Thursday, a 25% tariff on imported automobiles will be enforced, while tariffs on specific car parts will roll out in May or later.

Economists have cautioned that these tariffs, along with retaliatory measures from other countries, could lead to higher prices for American consumers. The reason is that the tax is levied on the domestic company importing the goods. These businesses may choose to pass the costs onto customers or reduce imports, leading to lower availability of products.

Potential Price Hikes

Automobiles

The US imported approximately eight million vehicles last year, amounting to around $240 billion in trade.

Experts predict that these new tariffs could raise the price of new cars by several thousand dollars. In December, the average price of a new car in the US reached a record $49,738, according to Cox Automotive. Increased demand for used cars may also push their prices up.

Even vehicles manufactured in the US are expected to become more expensive. Many American automakers operate plants in Canada and Mexico, taking advantage of longstanding free trade agreements. Car parts often cross borders multiple times before a vehicle is fully assembled.

Although tariffs on car parts from Canada and Mexico are currently exempt, US customs and border patrol officials are working on a system to assess these duties.

According to the Anderson Economic Group, tariffs on car components from Canada and Mexico alone could raise costs by approximately $4,000 to $10,000, depending on the vehicle. While experts argue that these costs will likely be transferred to consumers, Trump has stated he “couldn’t care less” if prices rise, believing this move will encourage Americans to buy domestically made cars.

Alcoholic Beverages: Beer, Whiskey, and Tequila

Popular Mexican beer brands like Modelo and Corona may become more expensive for American consumers if importers pass on the additional costs.

Modelo and other foreign beer brands will also be affected by the expanded aluminum tariff, which will now apply to canned beer starting April 4. The Beer Institute reports that 64.1% of beer consumed in the US comes from cans.

In a joint statement, representatives from the American, Canadian, and Mexican spirits industries highlighted that beverages such as bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila, and Canadian whisky “can only be produced in their designated countries.”

Since these alcoholic beverages must be made in specific regions, supply shortages could drive up prices.

Trump has also suggested imposing a 200% tariff on European alcohol imports, which could increase the price of Spanish wine, French champagne, and German beer in the US. However, it remains unclear whether this proposal will be enacted.

Housing Costs

A significant portion of the softwood lumber used in US home construction—about one-third—is imported from Canada.

Trump has downplayed concerns, stating that the US has “more lumber than we ever use.”

However, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has voiced serious concerns about how tariffs on lumber could raise home-building costs. Given that most American homes are built using wood, higher lumber prices may deter new construction.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB warned.

Imports from other countries may also be impacted.

On March 1, Trump initiated an investigation into whether additional tariffs should be placed on lumber and timber imports from all nations or whether the US should incentivize domestic production. A report on the findings is expected by late 2025.

Maple Syrup

Canada dominates the global maple syrup market, accounting for 75% of worldwide production.

Around 90% of the syrup is produced in Quebec, which has maintained a strategic reserve for over two decades.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” said Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics.

“If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the US, but [which use] inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up,” he added.

Fuel Prices

Canada is the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the US.

Between January and November 2024, 61% of imported oil came from Canada, according to the latest trade data.

Although most imported goods from Canada are subject to a 25% tariff, Canadian energy products face a lower rate of 10%.

While the US has ample oil reserves, its refineries are optimized for processing heavier crude oil, which is primarily sourced from Canada and, to a lesser extent, Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel production,” the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers stated.

If Canada retaliates by reducing crude oil exports to the US, fuel prices could rise.

Avocados

Mexico provides nearly 90% of the avocados consumed in the US.

The US Department of Agriculture has warned that tariffs on Mexican fruits and vegetables could drive up the cost of avocados, potentially making dishes like guacamole more expensive.

Trump’s Tariff Hike Sparks Global Backlash and Trade War Fears

Donald Trump’s decision to implement new tariffs on all goods entering the United States has been condemned as a “major blow to the world economy” by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Her statement aligns with reactions from several other countries, including China, which strongly opposed the move and warned of “resolute countermeasures” in response.

The backlash follows Trump’s announcement of a universal 10% tariff on all imports starting April 5. Additionally, about 60 countries will be subject to even higher tariffs beginning April 9.

The U.S. president defended the measures as a response to what he described as unfair trade policies. He asserted that he had been “very kind” in his approach and that the tariffs were designed to strengthen American manufacturing. “This move will make America wealthy again,” Trump said on Wednesday.

Speaking on Thursday morning, von der Leyen warned that the new tax on imports would cause “uncertainty to spiral,” leading to “dire” consequences for millions worldwide.

She highlighted the disproportionate effect on vulnerable nations, noting that many of them would now be subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs.

Von der Leyen stressed that Europe would adopt a united stance and cautioned that the European Union—set to face a 20% tariff—was preparing countermeasures if negotiations with Washington failed. “If you take on one of us, you take on all of us,” she declared.

Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, confirmed that discussions among EU member states would begin next week.

Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister and a Trump ally, criticized the decision as “wrong” but expressed her intention to negotiate with the U.S. to “prevent a trade war.”

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez reaffirmed Spain’s commitment to an “open world,” while Ireland’s leader, Micheál Martin, called Trump’s decision “deeply regrettable” and said it benefited no one.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron scheduled a meeting with business leaders affected by the tariffs at the Élysée Palace on Thursday.

French government spokeswoman Sophie Primas signaled a tough stance, stating, “France is ready for this trade war.”

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk estimated that the tariffs could cost his country over 10 billion zloty (£2 billion; $2.6 billion), calling the move a “severe and unpleasant blow” on social media platform X.

Beyond Europe, China—one of the nations Trump labeled a “worst offender”—was hit with a 34% tariff on its goods, in addition to an existing 20% levy. This raises the total duty on Chinese imports to at least 54%.

China’s Ministry of Commerce urged Washington to “immediately cancel” the tariffs and vowed to “resolutely take countermeasures to safeguard its own rights and interests.”

Taiwan, which faces a 32% tariff on exports to the U.S., denounced the move as “highly unreasonable.”

Taiwanese Premier Cho Jung-tai stated that his government would make “serious representations” to Washington over the issue.

In South Korea, acting President Han Duck-soo acknowledged that a global trade war had “become a reality.” He pledged to explore ways to “overcome the trade crisis” after his country was hit with a 25% tariff.

Japan expressed its disappointment over its 24% levy, calling it “extremely regrettable.” Officials noted that the tariff could violate agreements between the U.S. and Japan, as well as World Trade Organization rules.

Thailand, which now faces a 36% tariff, announced plans to negotiate with Washington in an effort to ease the impact on its economy.

Israel, which had previously eliminated all tariffs on American imports, was taken aback by a 17% tariff imposed on its goods.

Israeli economic officials expressed surprise, with one telling local media, “We were sure that the decision to completely cancel tariffs on imports from the U.S. would prevent this move.”

The White House defended its decision, stating that the tariffs were meant to be reciprocal, targeting countries that impose higher duties on U.S. goods or use “non-tariff” barriers to restrict American trade.

Among nations subject to the 10% baseline tariff, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued that Americans would suffer the most from these “unjustified tariffs.”

Albanese clarified that Australia would not implement retaliatory measures. “We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth,” he said.

A senior official from the UK government told the BBC that Britain’s lower tariff rate vindicated its efforts to secure a trade deal with the U.S.

On Thursday, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reiterated his commitment to securing a trade deal with Washington but cautioned that his government would respond with “cool and calm heads.”

Meanwhile, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds revealed that the UK was preparing a list of American goods that could face retaliatory taxes if necessary. He added that British officials would consult businesses on potential countermeasures until May 1.

In Latin America, Brazil—its largest economy—approved a new law in Congress, the Economic Reciprocity Law, aimed at countering Trump’s 10% tariff.

Brazil’s foreign ministry announced that it would consider “all possible actions to ensure reciprocity in bilateral trade, including resorting to the World Trade Organization.”

Following Trump’s announcement, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cautioned other nations against retaliation, urging them to “sit back, take it in.”

“Because if you retaliate, there will be escalation,” he warned in an interview with Fox News.

Notably, the U.S.’s two largest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, were absent from Trump’s list of affected countries.

Despite this, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged that Canada would still feel the impact of the tariffs.

Carney pointed to the 25% tariff on automobiles, which takes effect at midnight on Thursday, as an example of a measure that would “directly affect millions of Canadians.”

He pledged to “fight these tariffs with countermeasures,” warning that U.S. actions could “fundamentally change the global trading system.”

Russia and North Korea, both U.S. adversaries, were also absent from the list of countries facing new tariffs.

The White House clarified that these nations would continue to be addressed under existing executive orders, which had already placed 25% tariffs on them as part of measures related to fentanyl and border security concerns.

Trump to Unveil ‘Reciprocal Tariff’ Plan; Experts to Debate Its Impact

President Donald Trump and his economic advisers are set to outline his “reciprocal tariff” strategy on Wednesday, April 2. As Trump announced on social media, “I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them – No more, no less!” However, many trade experts remain skeptical of this approach.

Brookings Panel to Discuss Trade Policy

On Thursday, April 3, the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution will host a panel discussion analyzing Trump’s latest trade and tariff policies. The panel will feature:

  • Sarah Bianchi, former deputy U.S. trade representative
  • Mary Lovely, Anthony M. Solomon senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics
  • Kelly Ann Shaw, deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs in Trump’s first administration

The discussion will be moderated by Ana Swanson of The New York Times, with an audience Q&A session following the panel.

The event is expected to provide insight into the potential economic consequences of the reciprocal tariff strategy and whether it could escalate trade tensions or benefit American industries.

India and US Begin Bilateral Trade Talks Amid Tariff Concerns

India and the United States have commenced bilateral trade negotiations in Delhi, which will continue until Saturday.

A U.S. delegation, led by Assistant Trade Representative for South and Central Asia Brendan Lynch, arrived in the Indian capital on Tuesday for discussions aimed at strengthening trade relations.

“This visit reflects the United States’ continued commitment to advancing a productive and balanced trade relationship with India,” the U.S. Embassy stated.

The talks come ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s April 2 deadline to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on several countries, including India. Trump has long advocated for tit-for-tat tariffs, arguing that the U.S. should impose the same duties on foreign goods that its trading partners levy on American exports.

India’s junior commerce minister Jitin Prasada informed parliament on Tuesday that both nations were negotiating a “multi-sector bilateral trade agreement” to expand market access and address “tariff and non-tariff barriers.”

Trade discussions between the two countries have been ongoing since Trump assumed office. In March, Trade Minister Piyush Goyal made an unscheduled visit to the U.S. following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s February trip to Washington.

Until recently, the U.S. was India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $190 billion. Trump and Modi had set an ambitious target to more than double this figure to $500 billion (£400 billion). The two nations have also committed to finalizing the first phase of a trade deal by autumn 2025.

Despite these commitments, past tensions have characterized U.S.-India trade relations. The Trump administration has previously criticized India as a “tariff king” and a “big abuser” of trade agreements.

In response to U.S. concerns, India recently lowered tariffs on select American goods, including Bourbon whiskey and motorcycles. However, trade imbalances persist, with India maintaining a $45 billion surplus. India’s average tariff rate of approximately 12% remains significantly higher than the U.S. rate of 2%.

While officials have not disclosed details of the ongoing talks, a Reuters report suggests that India might reduce tariffs on over half of U.S. imports worth $23 billion in the first phase of a trade deal. This move could be an attempt to prevent retaliatory action from Washington.

Although Trump has pushed for strict tariff reciprocity, he hinted on Monday that his administration might take a more lenient approach.

“We may take less than what they’re charging, because they’ve charged us so much, I don’t think they could take it,” Trump said, suggesting that some countries might receive exemptions from the new measures.

As negotiations progress, both nations aim to strike a deal that balances market access with their respective economic priorities.

Myanmar Earthquake Kills Over 1,600 as Rescue Efforts Struggle Amid Civil War

More than 1,600 people have died in Myanmar following a devastating earthquake, with survivors in some areas telling the BBC they have been left to dig through rubble with their bare hands in search of loved ones.

The quake has flattened much of Mandalay, Myanmar’s ancient capital and second-largest city, home to about 1.5 million people. A lack of equipment, disrupted communication networks, and damaged roads and bridges have severely hindered rescue operations.

Myanmar’s military junta, which seized power in 2021, has lost control of large parts of the country due to an ongoing civil war against rebel groups and anti-coup resistance forces.

Although rescue efforts have been ongoing since Friday and international aid has started arriving, relief has yet to reach the worst-hit areas. In the absence of official coordination, ordinary citizens have been forced to dig out survivors by hand.

Widely circulated footage shows two men removing rubble to free a young woman trapped between two concrete slabs. Locals told the BBC that people were still screaming for help from beneath the debris.

Rescuers managed to pull a woman alive from the wreckage of a 12-story apartment block in Mandalay nearly 30 hours after it collapsed, but the Red Cross estimates that more than 90 people may still be trapped.

In a nearby township, authorities discovered the bodies of 12 preschool children and a teacher beneath a collapsed kindergarten.

The UN humanitarian agency OCHA reported that severe damage to the main highway connecting Myanmar’s largest city, Yangon, to the capital, Nay Pyi Taw, and Mandalay has significantly disrupted transportation. Medical supplies, including trauma kits, blood bags, anesthetics, essential medicines, and tents for health workers, are also in short supply.

Rescue workers continue to listen for any signs of life. “We can only rescue people when we hear them,” one worker said.

On Saturday, a rescue team in Mandalay’s Sintkai township pulled several people from the debris of a collapsed private school. Six—five females and one male—had already died by the time rescuers arrived. The victims included students, teachers, and staff.

A lack of proper equipment has slowed down rescues. “We are making do with what we have,” a worker told BBC Burmese. “We have been trying for hours to pull out a girl trapped under the collapsed school.”

Communication has also been severely disrupted, making coordination difficult. A rescue worker in Mandalay told a BBC reporter in Yangon that contacting teams on the ground has been nearly impossible.

“The main thing is that we don’t have internet lines, we don’t have phone lines, so it’s very difficult to connect with each other. The rescue team has arrived, but we don’t know where it will go because the phone lines are down,” he said.

A Mandalay resident described the rescue efforts as chaotic, with little official leadership.

“There is no coordination in the rescue efforts, no one to lead them, or tell them what to do. Locals have had to fend for themselves. If they find dead bodies in the debris, they don’t even know where to send them; hospitals are overwhelmed and unable to cope,” the resident said.

The junta estimates that over 1,500 buildings in Mandalay have been damaged. Widespread power outages have exacerbated the crisis, and officials say restoring electricity could take days.

Mandalay’s airport is currently inoperable due to runway damage. The military council has set up a temporary hospital, medical relief camp, and shelter at the site while working to restore airport operations.

Just 25 kilometers from Mandalay, in Sagaing, the older of two bridges connecting the region has completely collapsed, while the newer bridge has developed cracks, making it impassable. The blockage has prevented emergency teams from reaching the area.

“Right now, there are not enough people even for emergency rescue. We can’t pick up bodies, there are so many people trapped. We can’t cross either bridge, so we are all stuck in the rubble. Please help emergency rescuers come and rescue us,” a local resident pleaded to BBC Burmese.

The newly built capital, Nay Pyi Taw, where the military junta is headquartered, has experienced aftershocks and minor tremors. The city has suffered extensive damage, with high casualties, collapsed buildings, and buckled roads.

Despite making a rare international appeal for aid, the junta has continued airstrikes and drone attacks against armed opposition groups.

BBC Burmese confirmed that at least seven people were killed in an airstrike in Naungcho in northern Shan state. The attack took place around 3:30 p.m. local time, less than three hours after the earthquake struck.

Pro-democracy rebel groups have reported additional aerial bombings in Chang-U township in central Sagaing, the epicenter of the quake. There are also reports of airstrikes near the Thai border.

Tom Andrews, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, condemned the military’s actions.

“The problem is that you still have military operations going on right now… Military strikes by the junta,” he told the BBC.

“I’m calling upon the junta to just stop, stop any of its military operations. This is completely outrageous and unacceptable.”

As rescue efforts continue, Myanmar’s humanitarian crisis deepens, with thousands still unaccounted for and survivors pleading for urgent assistance.

Vance Reassures U.S. Won’t Use Military Force in Greenland Amid Trump’s Push for Control

Vice President J.D. Vance stated on Friday that the United States is unlikely to use military force in President Donald Trump’s pursuit of acquiring Greenland. Speaking from Pituffik Space Base, a key American military installation in northwestern Greenland, Vance emphasized that the U.S. respects the island’s sovereignty despite Trump’s repeated assertions that the territory should belong to the United States.

“We do not think military force is ever going to be necessary,” Vance said in response to a question about potential military plans to take control of Greenland. “What we think is going to happen is that the Greenlanders are going to choose, through self-determination, to become independent of Denmark, and then we’re going to have conversations with the people of Greenland from there.”

The comments come as Trump continues to argue that Greenland is crucial to U.S. security interests. His concerns range from Russia’s access to the Arctic to China’s increasing influence in the region.

“We need Greenland for international security. We have to have Greenland,” Trump said in remarks from the White House on Friday.

Vance, however, shifted some of the focus to Denmark’s role in securing Greenland, claiming that the Danish government has failed to adequately protect the strategically important territory.

“The Danes have not done their job in keeping this area safe,” Vance said.

Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has firmly resisted Trump’s interest in acquiring it. The Danish government has repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale, and officials in Copenhagen strongly criticized Vance’s visit.

Vance clarified that the U.S. has no plans to expand its military presence on the island and suggested that any changes in security arrangements would be coordinated with Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

“We hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we’re the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security,” he said.

Greenland’s Political Landscape

Greenland’s recent elections reflect little appetite for a quick break from Denmark. The Demokraatit party, which advocates a long-term path toward independence rather than an abrupt split, won the March election.

Public sentiment in Greenland appears largely against Trump’s proposal, and attitudes toward the U.S. among the island’s 57,000 residents have reached a low point.

This growing tension led to the White House canceling a planned “heritage” tour of Greenland. The visit, originally set for Second Lady Usha Vance, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, was scrapped after officials in Nuuk and Copenhagen pushed back strongly. Greenlandic officials also showed little enthusiasm for hosting the American delegation.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen welcomed the White House’s decision to cancel the heritage tour, calling it a “positive” move that respected Greenlandic sentiment. However, he noted there was no objection to American officials visiting the Pituffik base, which has long been a U.S. military outpost.

U.S. Presence in Greenland

Vance’s visit to northern Greenland provided a rare opportunity to highlight the American military’s presence in one of the world’s harshest environments. Pituffik Space Base, located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, serves as a key front line in missile defense, early-warning systems, and space surveillance.

The vice president received an extensive briefing on Arctic security from military personnel stationed at the base. The extreme conditions became apparent upon his arrival, as temperatures hovered at minus 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

“It’s cold as s‑‑‑ here. Nobody told me,” Vance remarked after joining U.S. Space Force Guardians for lunch.

In addition to serious discussions on security, Vance was introduced to some of the unusual traditions upheld by service members at the base. One such tradition is the polar plunge, where participants dive into the frigid Arctic waters. Those who complete the challenge receive a certificate acknowledging their bravery—or as some jokingly call it, a “certificate for stupidity.”

Vance took the opportunity to share a lighthearted moment with the troops, joking about the challenge.

“And let it be known that this task of questionable sanity was accomplished despite near-freezing temperatures, the threat of collapsing icebergs, and lusty seals,” he quipped.

The Signal Chat Controversy

Vance’s trip to Greenland also took place against the backdrop of a controversy surrounding his involvement in a sensitive text chain. The vice president has come under scrutiny for participating in a Signal group chat in which officials discussed classified details about a planned military strike in Yemen.

The chat became a major scandal after it was revealed that a journalist had inadvertently been included in the group. Critics argue that the discussion may have put classified military information at risk.

Vance attempted to downplay the controversy, assuring reporters that an internal investigation is underway. However, he made it clear that no one would face termination over the incident.

“President Trump has said on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, and I’m the vice president saying it here on Friday, we are standing behind our entire national security team,” Vance stated.

The investigation’s findings are expected to be released “soon,” according to the vice president.

Tensions Over U.S.-Greenland Relations

The Trump administration’s push to establish greater U.S. influence in Greenland has generated friction with Denmark, which has historically controlled the island. In recent years, Washington has increased its diplomatic and economic outreach to Greenland, viewing it as a critical asset in Arctic geopolitics.

Despite these efforts, Greenlanders remain skeptical of Trump’s ambitions. Greenland’s economy and governance remain deeply tied to Denmark, and there is little indication that its population supports closer ties with the U.S. at the expense of its autonomy.

Trump’s repeated declarations that Greenland should be part of the United States have only fueled further resentment. His administration has previously floated ideas such as investing in infrastructure and economic development projects on the island, but these proposals have been met with mixed reactions.

With tensions between Copenhagen, Nuuk, and Washington continuing to simmer, Vance’s trip to Greenland was seen as a diplomatic attempt to balance Trump’s aggressive rhetoric with a more measured approach. However, his visit did little to quell the controversy surrounding the U.S. administration’s stance on Greenland’s future.

As Trump and his allies continue to push for greater U.S. influence in the Arctic, it remains to be seen how Greenland’s leadership and its people will respond. For now, Denmark remains firmly in control, and Greenlanders show little interest in Trump’s vision for the island’s future.

U.S. Names India a ‘State Actor’ in Fentanyl Supply Chain Amid Rising Trade Tensions

With just a week remaining before the Trump administration’s retaliatory tariffs take effect, the United States has classified India alongside China as a “state actor” enabling the supply of precursor chemicals and equipment used by drug traffickers, particularly in the illicit fentanyl trade.

U.S. Threat Assessment Flags India’s Role in Fentanyl Crisis

The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment (ATA)—a report outlining global risks to U.S. national security—was released on Tuesday and highlighted the increasing role of China and India in supplying materials fueling the ongoing fentanyl crisis in the United States.

According to the report, fentanyl and synthetic opioids remain the deadliest drugs trafficked into the U.S., causing over 52,000 deaths in the 12-month period ending October 2024. The Trump administration has escalated its crackdown on fentanyl trafficking, linking trade policies with countries suspected of involvement in the illicit drug supply chain. However, this is the first time Washington has explicitly placed India on the same level as China regarding the supply of precursor chemicals used in manufacturing fentanyl.

The report underscores that while Mexican drug cartels, particularly the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, continue to dominate fentanyl production and distribution, they rely on precursor chemicals and equipment sourced from state actors like China and India.

“Non-state groups are often enabled, both directly and indirectly, by state actors, such as China and India as sources of precursors and equipment for drug traffickers,” the report states.

“China remains the primary source country for illicit fentanyl precursor chemicals and pill-pressing equipment, followed by India,” according to the assessment published by the office of Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Recent Criminal Cases Involving India-Based Companies

The report’s findings follow a recent federal case in Washington, D.C., where an India-based chemical manufacturing company and three of its executives were charged with illegally importing fentanyl precursors. In another case, two senior employees of a Hyderabad-based company were arrested in New York City last week, further intensifying concerns about India’s role in the illicit fentanyl supply chain.

Broader Security Concerns: Terrorism and Transnational Threats

Beyond the drug trade, the ATA report also raised alarms about transnational terrorist threats. It identified ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) as among the most aggressive branches of ISIS, warning that the group, along with “entrepreneurial plotters,” may attempt to attack the U.S. or its allies using online propaganda and recruitment efforts.

Additionally, the report noted that Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has focused recent attacks on Pakistan, likely to avoid additional counter-terrorism scrutiny. However, the group’s historical ties to al-Qaida and past involvement in U.S.-targeted operations remain a concern.

“Anti-India groups, including Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, similarly concern us in part because of their historical links with al-Qaida,” the report observed.

Trade Tensions: India in Talks to Avoid U.S. Tariffs

Amid these escalating tensions, Trump has threatened to impose new reciprocal tariffs on several countries, including India, as part of his “Liberation Day” tariffs set to take effect on April 2. However, India is currently negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S., which could potentially exempt it from some of these trade restrictions.

The developments mark a critical juncture in U.S.-India relations, as the designations in the fentanyl trade could strain diplomatic ties while both nations seek to navigate trade disputes and secure economic agreements.

Uncertainty Looms Over Russia-Ukraine Black Sea Cease-Fire Deal

Russia and Ukraine have signaled their commitment to halting hostilities in the Black Sea, but it remains uncertain whether an agreement will take effect soon—if at all.

Moscow attached a significant condition to the deal, stating it would comply only if restrictions on its agricultural exports were lifted. The penalties, imposed by the United States and the European Union, would require a complex negotiation process to reverse.

Additionally, Kyiv and Moscow appear to have differing interpretations of the U.S.-brokered agreement announced on Tuesday. While Russia views the deal as a means to revive a 2022 U.N.-backed accord granting it control over commercial shipping in the Black Sea, Ukraine has insisted it will not allow the Russian Navy back into the western Black Sea, its primary maritime trade route.

Violations and Mistrust Persist

The deep-seated mistrust between the two nations was evident on Wednesday as both sides accused each other of breaching the truce. Ukraine reported an attack on its port city of Mykolaiv, while Moscow claimed to have shot down two Ukrainian drones over the Black Sea.

Russia’s demands indicate that it is in no rush to end the conflict. With a sympathetic administration in the White House and the upper hand on the battlefield, Moscow appears determined to extract maximum concessions before considering a cease-fire.

Russia’s Conditions for Compliance

The Kremlin has made clear that it will not agree to the cease-fire unless its state agriculture bank and other financial institutions involved in food and fertilizer trade are reconnected to the international payment system, Swift.

Given that Swift is headquartered in Belgium, the U.S. would have to convince European regulators to approve such a move. The White House has stated that it will “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports.”

Moscow is also demanding that Western companies resume deliveries of agricultural equipment to Russia and that sanctions on its food and fertilizer companies, shipping vessels, and insurers be lifted.

Despite sanctions, Russia’s agricultural exports remain strong. The country’s grain and fertilizer trade reached $45 billion in 2023, and it continues to export record-high volumes, according to Andrei Sizov, director of the Russian consultancy SovEcon.

Some experts warn that lifting sanctions on a Russian state bank could allow the Kremlin to bypass broader financial restrictions. “The minute you have a sanctions-free bank, you can use it for whatever you want,” said Aleksandr Kolyandr, a Russia analyst at the Center for European Policy Analysis. “It can be an instrument to crack the sanctions regime, but it is much easier to monitor just one bank.”

Ukraine’s Skepticism

While Kyiv has agreed to the maritime cease-fire, it remains wary of Moscow’s intentions.

President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Russia’s demand for sanctions relief, stating it was “already trying to distort agreements.” He also expressed concerns that the U.S. commitment to facilitating Russian agricultural exports represented “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions.”

With Russia’s demands and the conflicting interpretations of the deal, experts question what Ukraine stands to gain. Notably, the White House has not clarified whether the agreement would protect Ukrainian ports from Russian attacks or lead to the reopening of the ports of Mykolaiv and Kherson—key objectives for Ukraine during negotiations.

Kyiv also has little interest in reviving the 2022 U.N.-backed grain deal that Russia favors. That agreement allowed Ukraine to export grain through a designated Black Sea corridor but also granted Russia the authority to inspect commercial vessels for weapons.

Andrii Klymenko, head of the Black Sea Institute of Strategic Studies, noted that these inspections significantly delayed exports, making the route unprofitable. Since Russia withdrew from the deal, Ukraine has established its own shipping corridor, pushing the Russian Navy out of the western Black Sea and restoring grain exports to near prewar levels.

A Fragile Path Forward

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed in a phone conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days. Ukraine, which has advocated for a broader cease-fire, followed suit. Both nations have reaffirmed their commitment to the temporary moratorium on energy strikes.

On Tuesday, the Kremlin outlined which facilities would be protected under the agreement, including refineries, pipelines, storage sites, nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams, and energy transmission infrastructure. However, Russia excluded gas and oil extraction sites—facilities that Ukraine claims have been frequent targets of Russian attacks and that Kyiv had included in its own cease-fire proposal.

The situation underscores Moscow’s strategy of appearing open to negotiations while making minimal concessions.

Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov acknowledged the complexities of the deal, stating on Tuesday that “additional technical consultations” were necessary to effectively implement the energy and maritime cease-fires.

With key details unresolved and both sides skeptical of each other’s commitments, the viability of the cease-fire remains uncertain.

The Future of Western Security: Can Europe Step Up as the U.S. Steps Back?

The security landscape of the Western world faces its gravest challenge since the end of World War II, and this shift is likely to be long-term. As one expert notes, “Trumpism will outlast his presidency.” With the U.S. taking a step back, the pressing question is which nations are prepared to assume a leadership role.

In February 1947, at 9:00 AM, Lord Inverchapel, the British ambassador to Washington, entered the U.S. State Department with two critical diplomatic messages printed on blue paper—one concerning Greece and the other Turkey. Britain, financially drained and deeply indebted to the U.S., declared it could no longer support Greek government forces battling a Communist insurgency. Simultaneously, Britain was withdrawing from Palestine and India and reducing its presence in Egypt.

Recognizing the threat of Soviet influence expanding into Greece and potentially Turkey, the U.S. swiftly responded. President Harry Truman proclaimed, “It must be a policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.” This policy, known as the Truman Doctrine, cemented the idea that defending democracy abroad aligned with U.S. national interests.

Following this shift, the U.S. launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild European economies and helped establish NATO in 1949 to counter Soviet expansion. This period marked the definitive transfer of Western leadership from Britain to the United States. With its vast economic and military power, the U.S. emerged as the dominant force shaping the post-war world.

For decades, the U.S. played a central role in maintaining global security, but now, the fundamental assumptions behind its foreign policy are being questioned. Donald Trump is the first post-World War II president to challenge America’s global commitments. His stance has created uncertainty about the existing world order and left many wondering what the new one will look like.

A Challenge to the Truman Legacy

Trump’s skepticism of America’s international obligations is not new. Nearly 40 years ago, he placed full-page ads in U.S. newspapers criticizing the country’s military commitments. In 1987, he wrote, “For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States. Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests? The world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

This sentiment has persisted into his second term. Recently leaked messages on airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthis revealed administration officials expressing frustration over European reliance on U.S. military action. A message attributed to Vice President J.D. Vance read, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” In response, another, reportedly from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stated, “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Trump has gone further by embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin. Early in his second term, he informed Russia that Ukraine would not be allowed NATO membership and that he did not expect Ukraine to regain lost territories. Many critics saw this as a strategic blunder, surrendering leverage without securing anything in return.

Some Trump supporters view Putin as an ally in the ideological battle against liberal values, reinforcing the notion that U.S. foreign policy is increasingly shaped by domestic culture wars. Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, warns, “The US is becoming divorced from European values. That’s difficult [for Europeans] to swallow because it means that it’s structural, cultural, and potentially long-term. I think the current trajectory of the US will outlast Trump, as a person. I think Trumpism will outlast his presidency.”

NATO’s Article 5 “On Life Support”

Trump’s administration has signaled that the U.S. will no longer be the primary guarantor of European security, insisting that European nations must take responsibility for their own defense. Earlier this month, Trump stated, “If [NATO countries] don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them.”

For nearly 80 years, NATO’s Article 5—stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all—has been the bedrock of European security. While UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer expressed confidence in the U.S. commitment to NATO, others remain skeptical.

Ben Wallace, former UK defense secretary, warned, “I think Article 5 is on life support. If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn’t step up to the plate, invest a lot on defense, and take it seriously, it’s potentially the end of the NATO that we know and it’ll be the end of Article 5. Right now, I wouldn’t bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn’t take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue.”

Public perception reflects this shift. A French poll by Institut Elabe found that nearly three-quarters of respondents do not consider the U.S. an ally of France. Majorities in traditionally pro-American nations like the UK and Denmark also hold unfavorable views of the U.S. Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, argues, “The damage Trump has done to NATO is probably irreparable. The alliance relied on an American guarantee that is no longer reliable, to say the least.”

Is the West Fragmenting?

For Russian President Putin, these developments play into his strategy of destabilizing Europe. After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s unsuccessful meeting with Trump, a Kremlin spokesperson declared, “The fragmentation of the West has begun.”

Armida van Rij of Chatham House echoes this concern: “Russia’s objectives are to destabilize Europe. It is to weaken NATO and get the Americans to withdraw their troops from here. And at the moment, you could go ‘tick, tick, and almost tick.'”

Meanwhile, European defense spending has dwindled. The UK, for example, has cut its military budget by nearly 70% since the Cold War peak. Wallace laments, “We had a big budget [during the Cold War] and we took a peace dividend… The problem is we went from a peace dividend to corporate raiding. [Defense] just became the go-to department to take money from. And that is where we just forgot the lessons of our history.”

Germany’s Chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has called for a Europe independent of the U.S. But building an autonomous European military-industrial complex remains a complex challenge. Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform notes, “The further west you go, the more problematic it becomes until you get to Spain and Italy.”

A New World Order?

Historian Timothy Garton Ash identifies key military assets that only the U.S. currently provides: “The satellites, the intelligence, the Patriot air defense batteries, which are the only ones that can take down Russian ballistic missiles.” He argues that within five years, Europe should develop its own capabilities to replace U.S. support.

Van Rij acknowledges that while European defense autonomy is necessary, “what’s really difficult are the divisions within Europe on how to actually do this and whether to actually do this.”

Trump’s vision appears to favor a world where major powers dictate terms to weaker nations, akin to the spheres of influence system of the Cold War era. The uncertainty surrounding U.S. commitments has left Europe facing a pivotal decision: unite, invest in defense, and maintain independence—or risk becoming subordinate to larger global powers.

Vice President Vance to Travel to Greenland Amid Rising U.S.-Denmark Tensions

Vice President J.D. Vance announced Tuesday that he will travel to Greenland on Friday, a move that follows backlash over second lady Usha Vance’s planned visit to the Arctic island. The trip is taking place against the backdrop of renewed tensions between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland, as President Donald Trump continues to push for U.S. control of the territory.

“There was so much excitement around Usha’s visit to Greenland this Friday that I decided that I didn’t want her to have all that fun by herself, and so I’m going to join her,” Vance said in a video posted on X.

The announcement adds to growing controversy surrounding the visit, which officials in Denmark and Greenland see as part of Trump’s broader strategy to assert U.S. interests over the island. Trump has repeatedly stated his intention to take control of Greenland, citing “international security concerns.”

Further straining diplomatic relations, national security adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright are also scheduled to travel to Denmark. Greenland Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede denounced Waltz’s visit as “highly aggressive,” while Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described the U.S. delegation’s presence as “unacceptable pressure.”

Jens-Frederik Nielsen, leader of Greenland’s Demokraatit party and likely the country’s next prime minister following elections earlier this month, criticized the visit as showing a “lack of respect for the Greenlandic people.”

The controversy comes as Vance and Waltz are facing a scandal over the Trump administration’s handling of classified intelligence. Both officials were reportedly involved in a Signal group chat discussing military operations in Yemen, which was accidentally shared with The Atlantic’s Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg.

During his visit, Vance is expected to tour the Pituffik Space Base, home to the U.S. Space Force’s 821st Space Base Group. He framed the trip as a security mission, stating that Greenland is a key strategic target for adversaries threatening the U.S. and Canada.

“We want to reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland because we think it’s important to protecting the security of the entire world,” Vance said, adding that Denmark has failed to take the island’s security seriously.

Greenland, a semiautonomous territory, remains under Danish control in matters of defense and foreign policy. While independence movements on the island are gaining traction, the Demokraatit party, which recently won parliamentary elections, advocates for a gradual separation from Denmark.

Trump, however, has made Greenland a focal point of his second-term foreign policy agenda. He first proposed acquiring the island during his first term and has since intensified his stance. In a March 4 speech to Congress, Trump reiterated his determination, declaring, “We’re going to get it [Greenland]. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”

Greenland Condemns U.S. Visits Amid Trump’s Takeover Talk

Greenland’s political leaders have strongly criticized upcoming high-profile U.S. visits following President Donald Trump’s renewed remarks about taking over the island.

Second Lady Usha Vance is set to visit Greenland this week for a cultural tour, while National Security Adviser Mike Waltz is also expected to travel there with Energy Secretary Chris Wright. However, outgoing Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede has described the visits as aggressive and noted that neither official was invited for meetings. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the likely next leader of Greenland, accused the U.S. of showing disrespect toward the island’s population.

U.S. Interest in Greenland

Greenland, the world’s largest island, has been under Danish control for about 300 years. While it manages its domestic affairs, foreign and defense policies remain under Copenhagen’s authority. The U.S. has long maintained a strategic interest in Greenland and has operated a military base on the island since World War II. Trump has also expressed interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals, and his son, Donald Trump Jr., visited the island before his father’s inauguration in January.

Announcing Vance’s visit, the White House stated that she would attend Greenland’s national dogsled race, the Avannaata Qimussersu, and visit historical sites to “celebrate Greenlandic culture and unity.” Meanwhile, Waltz’s trip was confirmed by a source speaking to CBS News, with reports suggesting he would arrive before Vance.

Egede viewed Waltz’s visit as a deliberate provocation. “What is the security adviser doing in Greenland? The only purpose is to show a demonstration of power to us,” he told Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq. Nielsen echoed these concerns, saying the visits demonstrated a lack of respect for Greenlanders.

Trump’s Push for U.S. Control

The tensions follow Trump’s recent remarks about Greenland’s future. In a conversation with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte earlier this month, Trump implied that he might pursue U.S. control over Greenland with NATO’s backing. “You know, Mark, we need that for international security… we have a lot of our favorite players cruising around the coast, and we have to be careful,” he said. “We’ll be talking to you.” When asked about the possibility of annexation, Trump responded, “I think that will happen.”

Greenland’s political parties swiftly condemned Trump’s statements, calling them “unacceptable behavior.” The issue became central to Greenland’s recent elections, in which Egede’s governing Inuit Ataqatigiit party lost unexpectedly to Nielsen’s Democratic party, which advocates for gradual independence from Denmark.

In a speech to the U.S. Congress earlier this month, Trump claimed he supported Greenland’s right to self-determination, stating, “If you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.” However, polls show that while nearly 80% of Greenlanders favor independence from Denmark, an even larger majority opposes becoming part of the U.S.

Newly Released JFK Assassination Files Shed Light on CIA Surveillance of Oswald

Thousands of newly released documents related to the investigation into President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination have been made public, reigniting interest in one of the most scrutinized events in U.S. history.

While experts say the latest release under the Trump administration does not resolve all lingering questions, the documents provide further insight into how closely the CIA monitored Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, before the shooting.

1. CIA Surveillance of Oswald—But No Bombshell Revelations

The newly available records confirm that Oswald was a subject of significant CIA interest well before Kennedy’s assassination.

“Oswald was under deep CIA surveillance,” said Jefferson Morley, a journalist and editor of the JFK Facts blog. “This is the most exciting news around JFK records since the 1990s.”

Many of the released documents were previously available but with heavy redactions. The unredacted versions offer a clearer picture of Oswald’s movements, particularly his September 1963 trip to Mexico City, two months before the assassination.

Philip Shenon, author of a 2013 book on the assassination, noted that the CIA was monitoring Oswald during his visit. “There’s reason to believe he talked openly about killing Kennedy in Mexico City, and that people overheard him say that,” he told The Associated Press.

A 1975 CIA memo downplayed the agency’s knowledge of Oswald’s trip, stating that only three phone calls between him and a Soviet embassy guard were recorded—and Oswald identified himself in only one.

2. Intelligence Methods Revealed

The newly released files also shed light on CIA operations during the Cold War, including intelligence-gathering techniques and the agency’s influence on U.S. foreign policy.

One newly unredacted memo, written by Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, details the CIA’s extensive presence in U.S. embassies—even in allied nations like France. Schlesinger’s note criticized the agency’s influence and warned Kennedy about its role in shaping foreign policy.

Additionally, the documents reveal Cold War-era surveillance techniques, such as fluoroscopic scanning—an early X-ray method used to detect hidden microphones. Another memo describes a system for secretly tagging and identifying tapped public phone booths using ultraviolet-sensitive paint.

One notable name in the files is James McCord, a former CIA officer who later became infamous for his role in the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

3. Old Conspiracy Theories Resurface

As with previous document releases, some online sources have used the new files to revive long-standing conspiracy theories, often misrepresenting their significance.

One viral claim centers on Gary Underhill, a former military intelligence officer who alleged that a group of rogue CIA agents was behind Kennedy’s assassination. This theory, first published in Ramparts magazine in 1967, gained renewed attention after photos of a seven-page CIA memo about Underhill circulated online.

However, the bulk of the memo was previously released in 2017, with only a few newly unredacted sentences in this latest batch. The theory itself is based on second-hand accounts and lacks concrete evidence.

Despite this, such theories continue to thrive, fueled by public skepticism and the enduring mystery surrounding Kennedy’s assassination.

4. Are the Files Completely Unredacted?

A 1992 law mandated the release of all JFK assassination-related records within 25 years, but it included national security exceptions. While successive administrations—including Trump’s and Biden’s—have declassified thousands of documents, some records remain redacted.

Ahead of this latest release, Trump claimed he instructed his staff “not to redact anything.” However, the new documents still contain some redactions, though experts acknowledge that the latest batch represents progress in government transparency.

Journalist Jefferson Morley believes additional classified files remain in the National Archives, as well as unreleased materials held by the CIA and FBI.

Even with more documents potentially forthcoming—including promised releases related to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.—questions about JFK’s killing are unlikely to be fully resolved.

“Whenever there is an assassination, there will be debates, and to some degree, there will be conspiracy theories,” said Villanova University historian David Barrett. “That’s not going to change because of these or any other documents.”

Finland Tops World Happiness Report 2025, India Ranks 118th

Finland has been named the happiest country in the world for the eighth consecutive year, according to the World Happiness Report 2025, released on March 19. The annual report, published by the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford, found that Finland continues to lead in global happiness rankings, followed by Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden in the top four positions.

India has shown a slight improvement in its ranking, moving up from 126th place in 2024 to 118th this year. However, despite this progress, India remains ranked lower than several conflict-affected nations, including Ukraine, Mozambique, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Gambia, and Venezuela.

The rankings in the report are based on individuals’ self-assessments of their happiness and life satisfaction. The study, conducted in collaboration with Gallup and the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, examines the factors influencing happiness beyond just economic growth.

Trust and Social Connections Key to Happiness

“Happiness isn’t just about wealth or growth — it’s about trust, connection, and knowing people have your back,” said Jon Clifton, CEO of Gallup. “If we want stronger communities and economies, we must invest in what truly matters: each other.”

Researchers found that happiness is significantly influenced by social trust, relationships, and community support. The study emphasized that factors such as sharing meals with family and friends, having a dependable support system, and household size contribute to overall well-being.

For instance, in Mexico and parts of Europe, a household size of four to five people correlates with the highest levels of happiness. Additionally, belief in the kindness of others was identified as a crucial factor.

One notable finding was that the perceived likelihood of retrieving a lost wallet is a strong predictor of a nation’s overall happiness. Nordic countries, including Finland and Denmark, ranked highest in both expected and actual rates of wallet returns, reinforcing the link between trust and well-being.

Globally, researchers discovered that people tend to underestimate the goodwill of others. In reality, the rate of lost wallet returns is nearly double what people expect.

Global Happiness Rankings: Top and Bottom Countries

European nations continue to dominate the top 20 in global happiness rankings. Despite its ongoing conflict with Hamas, Israel secured the 8th position. Costa Rica and Mexico entered the top 10 for the first time, ranking 6th and 10th, respectively.

However, some major economies have seen a decline in their happiness rankings. The United States fell to 24th place—its lowest ranking to date—after previously peaking at 11th place in 2012. The study highlighted a significant shift in American social habits, noting a 53% increase in people dining alone over the past two decades.

The United Kingdom, ranked 23rd, recorded its lowest average life evaluation since 2017.

At the bottom of the list, Afghanistan remains the unhappiest country in the world. Afghan women reported facing especially difficult living conditions, contributing to the country’s persistently low ranking. Sierra Leone in West Africa is the second unhappiest nation, followed by Lebanon in third place from the bottom.

Young Adults Facing Increased Loneliness

The report highlighted a growing crisis of loneliness among young adults worldwide. In 2023, 19% of young adults reported having no one they could rely on for social support—a 39% increase compared to 2006. This trend raises concerns about the long-term implications of social isolation and its impact on mental health and well-being.

Factors Influencing Happiness

The rankings in the World Happiness Report are determined by self-reported life evaluations collected between 2022 and 2024. Experts in economics, psychology, and sociology analyze the variations in happiness across countries using a combination of factors, including:

  • GDP per capita – Economic prosperity and financial security
  • Healthy life expectancy – Access to healthcare and overall physical well-being
  • Social support – Having people to rely on in times of need
  • Sense of freedom – The ability to make personal choices
  • Generosity – Willingness to help others and donate to charity
  • Perceptions of corruption – Public trust in government and institutions

The study underscores that while economic growth is important, other social and emotional factors play a critical role in determining a nation’s overall happiness.

As happiness remains a crucial indicator of overall well-being, the report encourages policymakers worldwide to focus on fostering social trust, community support, and a sense of security to improve happiness levels across nations.

Putin Temporarily Halts Attacks on Ukraine After Call with Trump

Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to pause strikes on Ukraine’s energy and infrastructure facilities following a lengthy conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump. However, Moscow has not committed to a broader ceasefire, keeping the overall conflict active.

In another development, the Trump administration has made public a set of records linked to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which were previously classified. While a large portion of these files had already been disclosed in the past, many of the newly released 1,123 documents had been redacted in earlier versions. Researchers will need time to thoroughly examine and assess their contents.

Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled that billionaire Elon Musk had exceeded his executive authority concerning his Department of Government Efficiency. The judge’s decision indefinitely halted efforts to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Additionally, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement countering Trump’s increasingly critical remarks against the federal judiciary. This response appeared to be directed at Trump’s recent calls to impeach judges who rule against him. Despite Roberts’ pushback, Trump dismissed the criticism without much reaction.

US Imposes 25% Tariff on Steel and Aluminum Imports, Prompting Global Retaliation

The United States has implemented a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports from across the globe.

In response, Canada and the European Union (EU) have introduced tariffs on American goods worth billions of dollars, heightening concerns about a potential global trade war.

President Donald Trump has threatened to impose a 200% tariff on alcohol imports from EU countries unless the bloc removes its “nasty 50% tariff on whisky.”

Additionally, Trump has already imposed 25% tariffs on various imports from Mexico and Canada, with some exceptions, as well as a 20% levy on goods from China.

Understanding Tariffs and Their Impact

Tariffs are taxes applied to goods imported from foreign countries.

Importing companies pay these taxes to the government.

Tariffs are usually calculated as a percentage of a product’s value. For example, a 20% tariff on Chinese goods means that an item valued at $10 (£7.76) incurs an additional $2 charge.

Businesses may choose to pass on some or all of the tariff costs to consumers.

Historically, the U.S. has maintained lower tariffs on imported goods than many other nations.

However, economists fear that Trump’s new tariffs, along with additional levies he has suggested could take effect on April 2, may drive up consumer prices both in the U.S. and globally.

Trump’s Justification for Tariffs

Tariffs play a key role in Trump’s economic strategy.

He argues that they will strengthen U.S. manufacturing, safeguard jobs, generate tax revenue, and stimulate domestic economic growth.

He also aims to correct America’s trade imbalance by reducing the gap between imports and exports with specific countries.

Despite this, Trump has not ruled out the possibility of a recession resulting from his trade policies, which led to a sharp decline in U.S. stock markets just before the metal tariffs took effect.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick later defended the tariffs, stating that they were “worth it” even if they contributed to an economic downturn.

Trump initially targeted Chinese, Mexican, and Canadian imports with tariffs.

These three countries accounted for over 40% of all U.S. imports in 2024.

However, Trump has accused them of failing to do enough to curb the influx of migrants and illegal drugs, such as fentanyl, into the U.S.

All three nations have rejected these allegations.

How the Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Work

The U.S. implemented a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports on March 12.

The U.S. is the world’s largest steel importer, with Canada, Brazil, and Mexico being its top suppliers.

Canada also supplies nearly 60% of all aluminum imported by the U.S.

Initially, Trump announced that there would be no exemptions to the steel and aluminum tariffs.

On March 11, he threatened to double tariffs on Canadian metals due to Canada’s decision to impose higher electricity charges on customers in three northern U.S. states in response to earlier U.S. tariffs.

However, Trump withdrew this plan just before it was set to take effect, as Canada agreed to suspend the extra energy charges.

During his first term in office, Trump had previously imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum in 2018.

However, he later negotiated exemptions for several countries, including Australia, Canada, and Mexico.

Despite these exemptions, the U.S. International Trade Commission reported that tariffs raised the average price of steel and aluminum in the country by 2.4% and 1.6%, respectively.

Global Reactions to the Steel Tariffs

Within hours of the U.S. tariffs taking effect, Canada and the EU announced countermeasures.

Canada introduced a 25% tariff on an additional C$29.8 billion ($20 billion; £16 billion) worth of U.S. goods starting on March 13.

These tariffs include steel products valued at C$12.6 billion, along with sports equipment, computers, and cast iron items.

The EU’s retaliatory tariffs, set to take effect on April 1 and be fully implemented by April 13, target U.S. goods worth €26 billion (£22 billion).

The list of affected items includes “boats, bourbon, motorbikes,” as well as steel and aluminum products such as pipes, window frames, and tin foil.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed regret over the measure, stating, “Tariffs are bad for business and worse for consumers.”

Trump, responding on his social media platform Truth Social, warned that if the EU did not remove its 50% tariff on American whiskey “immediately,” the U.S. would impose a 200% tariff on “all wines, Champagnes, and alcoholic products coming out of EU-represented countries.”

“This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.,” he added.

The UK, which exports significant amounts of steel to the U.S. each year, has taken a cautious stance.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told lawmakers that the UK would adopt a “pragmatic approach” but stated that it would “keep all options on the table.”

China’s foreign ministry vowed to take “all necessary measures” to protect its interests, asserting that the U.S. tariffs violated World Trade Organization rules.

Tariffs on Canadian and Mexican Goods

Trump has already implemented 25% tariffs on other goods from Canada and Mexico.

Originally set to take effect on February 4, these tariffs were delayed for a month to allow negotiations. They were officially implemented on March 4, alongside a 10% tariff on Canadian energy exports.

On March 5, Trump announced a one-month exemption for North American-made cars that comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

This trade pact, negotiated by Trump during his first term, establishes rules on how much of a vehicle must be produced within North America to qualify for tariff-free treatment.

The auto industry had warned that tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods could have significant consequences, as vehicle components frequently cross borders multiple times before assembly.

After Trump’s exemption announcement, shares in major U.S. automakers surged.

On March 6, Trump expanded the exemption to cover other goods covered by USMCA, including televisions, air conditioners, avocados, and beef.

Additionally, Trump reduced tariffs on potash, a key fertilizer ingredient, from 25% to 10%.

Canada’s Response to the Additional Tariffs

Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Trump of attempting “a total collapse of the Canadian economy [to] make it easier to annex us.”

He announced immediate retaliatory tariffs on C$30 billion ($21 billion; £16 billion) worth of U.S. imports, with plans for further measures totaling C$125 billion within three weeks.

However, after Trump granted additional exemptions, Canada delayed the second phase of tariffs.

Trudeau’s successor, Mark Carney, also criticized the tariffs as “unjustified” and stated, “In trade, as in hockey, Canada will win.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford initially planned to impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to three U.S. states—Michigan, New York, and Minnesota—in retaliation.

However, these plans were shelved after Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.

Mexico’s Response

Mexico postponed its retaliatory tariffs during the initial negotiation period.

President Claudia Sheinbaum urged calm, stating that “cooler heads will prevail” despite Trump’s actions.

She also agreed to deploy 10,000 troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb smuggling.

Following the implementation of tariffs on March 4, Sheinbaum declared them “unjustified” and promised a response involving “tariff and non-tariff measures.”

Before these countermeasures could be announced, Trump unveiled exemptions for carmakers and other goods, which Sheinbaum welcomed.

While Trump has been critical of Trudeau, he has praised Sheinbaum, describing their relationship as “very good.”

China’s Retaliatory Measures

A 10% tariff on all Chinese imports to the U.S. began on February 4.

Trump later announced an exemption for shipments valued under $800.

On February 10, China responded with tariffs of 10-15% on select U.S. agricultural products and imposed export controls on American aviation, defense, and tech firms.

The U.S. tariff doubled to 20% on March 4.

China urged the U.S. to resume negotiations, warning that if America continued a trade war, China would “fight them to the bitter end,” according to foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian.

Indian-Origin Women Anita Anand and Kamal Khera Appointed to Key Ministerial Positions in Mark Carney’s Cabinet

Anita Anand and Kamal Khera, both of Indian origin, have been assigned significant ministerial roles in the newly formed cabinet led by Prime Minister Mark Carney. The former central banker and leader of the Liberal Party took the oath of office on Friday, heading a 24-member cabinet that succeeds Justin Trudeau’s larger 37-member team.

Anand, 58, has been appointed as Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, while Khera, 36, will now serve as Minister of Health. Both ministers were retained from Trudeau’s cabinet but have been reassigned to new portfolios.

Anand conveyed her enthusiasm for her new responsibilities, remarking, “We know that negativity won’t pay the rent or the mortgage. Negativity won’t bring down the price of groceries. Negativity won’t win a trade war. We are united and strong and we will immediately get to work.”

Kamal Khera: A Young Leader in Canadian Politics

Khera, originally from Delhi, immigrated to Canada with her family while she was still in school. She later pursued a Bachelor of Science degree at York University in Toronto.

Elected to the Canadian Parliament in 2015 as the Member of Parliament for Brampton West, Khera became one of the youngest women to achieve this milestone. Over the years, she has served as Minister of Seniors and held several parliamentary secretary positions.

With a background in healthcare, Khera is also a registered nurse. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, she volunteered at a long-term care facility, reinforcing her commitment to public service. Expressing her gratitude for her latest ministerial role, she shared on X, “As a nurse, my top priority is to always be there to support my patients, and that’s the same mentality I’ll bring every day to the role of Minister of Health. Extremely grateful for the confidence of PM @MarkJCarney.”

Anita Anand’s Political Journey

Anand was considered a strong contender to succeed Justin Trudeau as the leader of the Liberal Party. However, she initially announced her departure from politics, only to reverse her decision on March 1, citing Canada’s “crucial moment in history.”

Raised in Nova Scotia before moving to Ontario in 1985, Anand made her political debut in 2019 when she was elected as the Member of Parliament for Oakville. Over the years, she has taken on several high-profile roles, including President of the Treasury Board, Minister of National Defence, and Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

The official website of the Prime Minister of Canada outlines her distinguished legal and academic career, stating, “Anand has worked as a scholar, lawyer, and researcher. She has been a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, where she held the J R Kimber Chair in Investor Protection and Corporate Governance.”

A Smaller Cabinet

Carney’s newly formed cabinet consists of 13 men and 11 women, making it a more compact team compared to the 37-member cabinet under Trudeau. The Prime Minister underscored the significance of a streamlined approach to governance, declaring, “Canada, meet your new cabinet. We’ve built a smaller, focused, and experienced team that is made to meet this moment.”

As Carney’s government begins its tenure, the presence of Indo-Canadian leaders in pivotal roles continues to underscore Canada’s commitment to diversity and inclusive representation in politics.

Zelensky Accuses Russia of Stalling Ceasefire Talks to Prolong War

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Russia of deliberately delaying negotiations on a Ukraine ceasefire, claiming that Moscow aims to ensure diplomacy collapses so that the conflict continues.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military has refuted claims that its forces are encircled in Russia’s Kursk region. This denial comes after former U.S. President Donald Trump appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to spare the lives of what he described as thousands of “surrounded” Ukrainian troops.

In response to Trump’s plea, Putin stated that Russia would allow Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk to live, provided they surrender and lay down their weapons.

During a press briefing following the G7 summit in Canada, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed cautious optimism regarding a potential Ukraine ceasefire but emphasized that further efforts are required to finalize an agreement.

Trump had earlier noted that discussions between the United States and Putin, held in Moscow on Thursday, had been “good and productive.”

The war in Ukraine began with Russia’s full-scale invasion three years ago. Since then, the conflict has evolved significantly, with ongoing military engagements and diplomatic efforts attempting to bring an end to the hostilities.

Trump Orders Airstrikes on Houthi-Held Areas in Yemen, Vows ‘Overwhelming Lethal Force’

President Donald Trump announced that he had ordered airstrikes targeting Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen on Saturday, vowing to continue using “overwhelming lethal force” until the Iran-backed rebels cease their attacks on ships navigating a crucial maritime route. According to the Houthis, the strikes resulted in the deaths of at least 18 civilians.

“Our brave Warfighters are right now carrying out aerial attacks on the terrorists’ bases, leaders, and missile defenses to protect American shipping, air, and naval assets, and to restore Navigational Freedom,” Trump stated in a social media post. “No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.”

Trump also issued a stern warning to Iran, demanding that it stop providing support to the Houthi rebels. He promised to hold Iran “fully accountable” for its role in backing the group. His decision to take military action follows a recent attempt to engage Iran diplomatically. Two weeks earlier, he had sent a letter to Iranian leaders proposing renewed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, which he has repeatedly insisted he will not allow to become operational.

The airstrikes took place on Saturday evening, targeting multiple Houthi strongholds, including the capital Sanaa and Saada province in the north, which borders Saudi Arabia. Additional strikes were reported early Sunday in those regions, along with attacks in the provinces of Hodeida, Bayda, and Marib. Images circulating online depicted plumes of black smoke rising over the Sanaa airport complex, an area that includes a large military installation.

The Houthi-run health ministry reported that at least 18 people were killed in the attacks—13 in Sanaa and five in Saada. Additionally, 24 others sustained injuries, with nine wounded in Sanaa and 15 in Saada.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated that these airstrikes were just the beginning of an ongoing military operation targeting Houthi positions. The official did not specify how long the campaign would last.

Despite the strikes, Houthi officials maintained that they would not back down. Nasruddin Amer, the deputy head of the group’s media office, stated that the airstrikes would not deter them and vowed retaliation against the United States. “Sanaa will remain Gaza’s shield and support and will not abandon it no matter the challenges,” Amer wrote in a social media post.

Mohamed Abdulsalam, another Houthi spokesman, dismissed Trump’s claims that the rebels posed a threat to international shipping routes, calling them “false and misleading” in a post on X.

The latest escalation follows a statement from the Houthis days earlier in which they declared their intent to resume targeting Israeli vessels sailing near Yemen. They cited Israel’s ongoing blockade of Gaza as their reason for renewing hostilities. Their warning covered a wide geographical area, including the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Arabian Sea.

However, no additional Houthi attacks have been reported since that announcement.

Earlier in the month, Israel had suspended the flow of aid into Gaza and warned of “additional consequences” for Hamas if the fragile ceasefire between the two sides was not extended. Talks are ongoing about entering a second phase of the ceasefire agreement.

Between late 2023—when the war between Israel and Hamas erupted—and January of this year, when the ceasefire was put in place, the Houthis had carried out attacks on over 100 merchant vessels. These assaults, which included the use of missiles and drones, led to the sinking of two ships and the deaths of four sailors. The Houthis targeted both military and civilian ships during this period.

The attacks have helped the group raise its international profile even as Yemen remains locked in a prolonged and devastating war. The country, the poorest in the Arab world, has faced years of conflict and humanitarian crises.

Following Saturday’s U.S. strikes, the Houthi media office claimed that a residential area in Sanaa’s northern Shouab district was among the targets. Residents described scenes of devastation, with at least four powerful explosions hitting the Eastern Geraf neighborhood. Women and children were reportedly terrified by the blasts.

“The explosions were very strong,” said Abdallah al-Alffi, a local resident. “It was like an earthquake.”

Eastern Geraf is known to house key Houthi military facilities as well as the group’s political headquarters. These sites are located within a densely populated part of the city.

Later on Saturday, the Houthis reported additional airstrikes in Yemen’s southwestern Dhamar province. According to their statements, the strikes hit areas on the outskirts of the provincial capital, also named Dhamar, as well as the district of Abs.

The U.S., along with Israel and the United Kingdom, has previously launched military strikes on Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen. However, Israel’s military declined to comment on Saturday’s operation.

A U.S. official confirmed that this latest strike campaign was conducted solely by the U.S. military. It marks the first time Trump has ordered an attack against the Yemen-based Houthis since the start of his second term.

Broad missile strikes like these were also carried out under the Biden administration. They were launched in response to repeated Houthi attacks on both commercial and military vessels operating in the region.

Saturday’s air operation was supported by the USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group. The group, stationed in the Red Sea, consists of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, three Navy destroyers, and one cruiser. The USS Georgia, a guided-missile submarine, has also been deployed in the region.

Trump revealed the military action while spending the day at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida.

“These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and World Economy many BILLIONS of Dollars while, at the same time, putting innocent lives at risk,” he wrote in a social media post.

The situation remains fluid, with expectations that U.S. airstrikes will continue in an effort to suppress further Houthi attacks on international shipping. However, with the Houthis promising retaliation, the risk of further escalation in the region remains high.

Mark Carney Sworn in as Canada’s New Prime Minister, Vows to Keep Country Independent from U.S.

Economist and political newcomer Mark Carney has officially taken office as Canada’s new prime minister, delivering a strong message that Canada will “never” become part of the United States.

Carney assumed office on Friday, mere days after winning the leadership of the governing Liberal Party, amid escalating trade tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump.

“We know that by building together, we can give ourselves far more than anyone else can take away,” Carney stated after his swearing-in ceremony.

He replaces outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who led Canada for nine years. Carney’s victory in last week’s Liberal leadership contest was decisive, marking a significant shift in the party’s direction.

During his first press conference as prime minister in Ottawa, Carney directly addressed Trump’s previous remarks suggesting Canada could become the 51st U.S. state. “We will never, in any shape or form, be part of the U.S.,” he asserted.

Emphasizing the distinctiveness of Canadian identity, he added, “We are very fundamentally a different country,” later dismissing Trump’s idea as “crazy.”

Carney did not confirm whether he would push for an early federal election, currently scheduled for October, but indicated he would act swiftly to secure “as strong a mandate that is needed for the time.”

One of Carney’s first acts as prime minister was ending a policy that had long been a target of opposition criticism. He repealed the consumer carbon pricing program, a significant environmental policy from Trudeau’s tenure that had become unpopular amid rising inflation.

The carbon tax had been widely criticized by Conservatives, who argued it increased the cost of goods and energy for Canadian households. However, at an afternoon cabinet meeting, Carney clarified that his government remains committed to addressing climate change, noting that the industrial carbon tax on large emitters would remain in place.

Canadians who have been paying into the carbon pricing system will receive their final rebate checks in April.

In recent months, Canadian politics have been largely shaped by Trump’s trade war, which began after he took office in January. With an election on the horizon, Carney is expected to position himself as the most capable leader to handle Trump’s economic policies.

Carney is no stranger to financial crises. He previously served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, where he played key roles in stabilizing both economies during turbulent times.

Next week, Carney is scheduled to embark on his first international trip as prime minister, visiting the United Kingdom and France.

Despite tensions, Carney expressed a willingness to engage with Trump. “We respect the United States. We respect President Trump,” he stated.

Acknowledging Trump’s policy priorities, Carney added, “President Trump has put some very important issues at the top of his agenda.”

Carney has pledged to maintain Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on specific U.S. goods for as long as Trump upholds the 25% universal tariffs on Canadian products not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

Given Canada’s economic dependence on trade with the U.S., economists warn that if Trump’s tariffs are fully implemented, Canada could face a recession.

Carney’s new cabinet includes several ministers from Trudeau’s administration, particularly those who have been actively involved in negotiations with the Trump administration.

Key figures retained in the new government include Mélanie Joly, who continues as foreign affairs minister; David McGuinty, who remains in charge of public safety; Jonathan Wilkinson, who stays on as energy minister; and Dominic LeBlanc, who moves from finance to trade. François-Philippe Champagne, formerly industry minister, has been appointed to the finance portfolio.

As Canada prepares for its next federal election, Carney’s primary political rival will be Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Before Trump’s tariff threats, the Conservatives held a commanding 20-point lead in some election polls. However, recent polling suggests a much tighter race.

Speaking after Carney’s swearing-in, Poilievre criticized the Liberals’ tenure, arguing that after nine years in power, they had failed to address key economic challenges. “It will be the same Liberal results,” he remarked.

Poilievre also vowed to take a tougher stance against Trump’s trade policies if elected. “If I were to be elected prime minister, I would face off against President Trump directly, respond with counter tariffs, and take back control,” he declared.

In the upcoming election, the Liberals will not only face the Conservatives, who hold 120 seats in the House of Commons, but also the Bloc Québécois, with 33 seats, and the New Democratic Party (NDP), which currently has 24 seats.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh reacted to Carney’s swearing-in by criticizing his cabinet selections, arguing that they signal a lack of space for progressive Liberals in the new government.

Singh noted that Carney did not create separate cabinet roles for ministers of women, youth, or people with disabilities. He accused the new prime minister of favoring the wealthy, stating that Carney has made billionaires “very rich at the cost of workers.”

Putin Expresses Willingness for Ceasefire but Sets Tough Conditions

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed agreement with the concept of a ceasefire in Ukraine but highlighted the need for further discussions on its terms. He also outlined a series of strict conditions that must be met before peace can be achieved.

Putin was responding to a proposed 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine accepted earlier this week after negotiations with the United States. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Putin’s reaction, calling it “manipulative” and urging for additional sanctions against Russia.

Meanwhile, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on Russia’s oil, gas, and banking sectors, further increasing pressure on Moscow.

Russian authorities announced that Putin was scheduled to discuss the ceasefire on Thursday evening with Steve Witkoff, a special envoy of U.S. President Donald Trump, who had arrived in Moscow earlier that day. However, it remains unclear whether the meeting actually took place. On Friday, Russian state media cited air traffic monitoring service Flightradar, which reported that the aircraft believed to have transported Witkoff had already departed from Moscow. Neither Washington nor Moscow have provided any official statements on the matter.

On Thursday night and into Friday morning, both Russian and Ukrainian forces reported enemy drone attacks. Ukraine reported that seven people, including children, were wounded in the northeastern city of Kharkiv. In Russia, authorities confirmed a massive fire at an oil facility in the southern city of Tuapse.

At a news conference in Moscow on Thursday, Putin discussed the ceasefire plan, stating, “The idea is right—and we support it—but there are questions that we need to discuss.” He emphasized that any ceasefire must lead to “an enduring peace and remove the root causes of this crisis.”

“We need to negotiate with our American colleagues and partners,” Putin added. “Maybe I’ll have a call with Donald Trump.”

The Russian president acknowledged that a temporary truce could be beneficial for Ukraine, saying, “It will be good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a 30-day ceasefire. We are in favor of it, but there are nuances.”

One of the major points of contention for Russia is the situation in its western Kursk region. Putin pointed out that Ukrainian forces had launched an incursion there in August, capturing some areas. He claimed that Russia had regained full control of Kursk and that Ukrainian troops in the region were now “isolated.”

“They are trying to leave, but we are in control. Their equipment has been abandoned,” he stated. “There are two options for Ukrainians in Kursk—surrender or die.”

A day earlier, Ukraine’s top commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, said Ukrainian troops would maintain defensive positions in Kursk as long as necessary, despite mounting pressure from Russian forces.

During his press conference, Putin also raised concerns about how the ceasefire would be implemented. “How will those 30 days be used? For Ukraine to mobilize? Rearm? Train people? Or none of that? Then a question—how will that be controlled?” he asked.

“Who will give the order to end the fighting? At what cost? Who decides who has broken any possible ceasefire, over 2,000km? All those questions need meticulous work from both sides. Who polices it?”

Zelensky, in his nightly video address, accused Putin of preparing to reject the ceasefire in practice, despite not explicitly saying so. “Putin, of course, is afraid to tell President Trump directly that he wants to continue this war, wants to kill Ukrainians,” he said.

He further argued that the Russian president had placed so many conditions on the ceasefire that it was unlikely to succeed. “The Russian leader has set so many preconditions that nothing will work out at all,” Zelensky said.

Putin’s comments and Zelensky’s response have highlighted the deep divisions between the two sides on how to proceed.

Ukraine advocates for a two-step approach: first, an immediate ceasefire, followed by discussions on a long-term peace agreement. However, Russia insists that both issues should be resolved together in a single, comprehensive deal. Neither side appears willing to compromise at this stage.

Ukraine hopes to pressure Russia into agreeing to a ceasefire by portraying it as an unwilling participant in peace talks. Meanwhile, Russia views the situation as an opportunity to raise its broader concerns, including NATO expansion and Ukraine’s sovereignty.

This situation presents a challenge for Donald Trump, who has stated that he wants a swift resolution to the war. He has repeatedly indicated that he aims to bring the conflict to an end in a matter of days.

However, Putin does not appear inclined to cooperate with Trump’s timeline.

Speaking at the White House after Putin’s remarks, Trump said he would “love” to meet the Russian president and expressed hope that Russia would “do the right thing” by agreeing to the proposed 30-day ceasefire.

“We’d like to see a ceasefire from Russia,” Trump stated.

Earlier in the day, during a meeting in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump told reporters that he had already discussed specific details with Ukraine regarding a potential peace agreement.

“We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost, and all of the other elements of a final agreement,” Trump explained. “A lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.”

Regarding Ukraine’s possible NATO membership, Trump remarked, “Everybody knows what the answer to that is.”

In response to Russia’s continued aggression, the U.S. expanded sanctions on Russian oil and gas, making it harder for other countries to purchase Russian energy by restricting access to U.S. payment systems.

Earlier on Thursday, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov had already dismissed the U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Kremlin released a video purportedly showing Putin visiting Russia’s Kursk region, wearing military fatigues. Later, Russian officials announced they had recaptured the key town of Sudzha.

The war, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, has resulted in Russia occupying approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory.

According to data analyzed by the BBC, more than 95,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the conflict. However, experts believe the actual number is significantly higher.

The Russian military has not officially disclosed its casualty figures since September 2022, when it reported 5,937 deaths.

Ukraine last provided an official death toll in December 2024, when Zelensky stated that 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers and officers had been killed. However, Western analysts consider this figure to be an underestimation.

Israel Accused of Genocidal Acts and Gender-Based Violence by UN Experts

UN experts have accused Israel of escalating sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians while systematically destroying maternal and reproductive healthcare facilities, which they claim amounts to “genocidal acts.”

A report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council outlines alleged violations, including instances of rape, in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which triggered the ongoing conflict. The report further suggests that the destruction of maternity wards and embryos at a fertility clinic may indicate a deliberate effort to prevent births within a specific group, which meets one of the legal definitions of genocide.

Israel has firmly denied these allegations, with its government dismissing the report’s findings as baseless. “Israel categorically rejects the unfounded allegations,” the government stated.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded with strong criticism, labeling the Human Rights Council as “an antisemitic, rotten, terrorist-supporting and irrelevant body.” He argued that instead of focusing on war crimes committed by Hamas, the council was unjustly targeting Israel with “false accusations.”

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2021, was tasked with investigating alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws.

This three-member commission stated that its findings were derived from testimonies of victims and witnesses of sexual and reproductive violence, visual evidence such as verified photos and videos, and information from civil society and women’s rights organizations. Some testimonies were presented during two days of public hearings in Geneva earlier this week.

Navi Pillay, a former UN human rights chief from South Africa who chairs the commission, stated, “The evidence collected reveals a deplorable increase in sexual and gender-based violence,” which she claims Israel is using to “terrorize” Palestinians and maintain an oppressive system that undermines their right to self-determination.

According to the report, specific forms of sexual and gender-based violence—including forced public stripping, sexual harassment such as threats of rape, and sexual assault—are “part of the Israeli Security Forces’ standard operating procedures toward Palestinians.”

The report further claims that rape and violence targeting genital areas were either committed “under explicit orders or with implicit encouragement by Israel’s top civilian and military leadership.” However, it does not present direct evidence of such orders from military commanders or senior officials. Instead, it cites remarks from Israeli ministers who defended soldiers accused of severe mistreatment of a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman military base last year.

Chris Sidoti, an Australian human rights lawyer and member of the commission, told the BBC, “Sexual violence is now so widespread that it can only be considered systematic. It’s got beyond the level of random acts by rogue individuals.”

Israel has rejected claims of systemic mistreatment and torture of Gaza detainees, insisting that it adheres fully to international legal standards.

The report also highlights the commission’s findings that Israeli forces have systematically destroyed sexual and reproductive healthcare facilities throughout Gaza during the war, which has now lasted 17 months.

It states that numerous women and girls have died due to pregnancy-related complications caused by conditions imposed by Israeli authorities, which have restricted access to reproductive healthcare. According to the commission, these actions amount to “the crime against humanity of extermination.”

Additionally, the report alleges that Israeli authorities have “destroyed in part the reproductive capacity of Palestinians in Gaza as a group” through the “systematic destruction” of sexual and reproductive healthcare facilities, including maternity hospitals and wards, as well as Gaza’s main in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic, the Al-Basma IVF Centre in Gaza City.

The destruction of these medical facilities, the report concludes, falls under “two categories of genocidal acts in the Rome Statute and the Genocide Convention, including deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”

The commission asserts that the embryology laboratory at Al-Basma was struck in early December 2023, reportedly destroying approximately 4,000 embryos along with 1,000 sperm samples and unfertilized eggs.

A visual analysis of images led the commission to determine that the destruction was caused by a large-caliber projectile, likely an Israeli tank shell. The report claims the attack was deliberate. However, at the time, the Israeli military told ABC News that it had no knowledge of a strike on the clinic. The BBC has since contacted the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for comment.

Chris Sidoti commented, “The deliberate destruction of a health facility is one serious issue for international humanitarian law and human rights law. But it does appear from our analysis of the attack on this clinic, that it was knowingly and intentionally directed towards the destruction of reproductive services. The consequence of this is the prevention of births.”

Israel’s mission to the UN in Geneva strongly criticized the report, calling it “a shameless attempt to incriminate the IDF and manufacture the illusion of ‘systemic’ use of sexual and gender-based violence.”

Israeli officials argued that the commission relied on “information from second-hand single uncorroborated sources,” a methodology that, they claimed, does not align with established UN standards.

The statement emphasized that the IDF has “concrete directives, procedures, orders, and policies, which unequivocally prohibit such misconduct” and maintains investigative mechanisms to handle any allegations of sexual violence.

Prime Minister Netanyahu also dismissed the report’s conclusions, calling the Human Rights Council an “anti-Israel circus.”

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and the war crimes that were perpetrated by the Hamas terrorist organization in the worst massacre carried out against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, the UN has again chosen to attack the State of Israel with false accusations, including baseless accusations of sexual violence,” Netanyahu said.

According to UN experts, their determination that “reasonable grounds to conclude” these crimes were committed was based on an analysis of digital evidence, as well as statements from victims and witnesses. Fernando Travesi of the International Center for Transitional Justice told the BBC that their methodology provided sufficient proof to justify the conclusions.

However, he noted that while the commission applies a different standard of evidence than a court of law, criminal liability for genocide would have to be proven “beyond any reasonable doubt” in a judicial setting.

The International Court of Justice is currently hearing a case brought by South Africa, which accuses Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel has adamantly denied these accusations.

The conflict in Gaza began after Hamas launched an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The attack killed approximately 1,200 people, and 251 were taken hostage.

Since then, Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry reports that over 48,520 people have been killed. The war has displaced most of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents multiple times, leaving nearly 70% of the territory’s buildings damaged or destroyed. The region’s healthcare, water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure has collapsed, and there are severe shortages of food, fuel, medicine, and shelter.

Ukraine Accepts US-Proposed 30-Day Ceasefire, Awaits Russia’s Response

Ukraine has announced its willingness to accept an immediate 30-day ceasefire with Russia, a proposal put forth by the United States following discussions between the two nations in Saudi Arabia.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that he would present the proposal to Moscow, emphasizing that “the ball is in their court.” However, Russia has yet to issue a public response to the offer.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed optimism about the proposal, asserting that it is now Washington’s responsibility to persuade Russia to agree to the “positive” plan.

The meeting in Jeddah on Tuesday marked the first formal engagement between Ukraine and the US since the heated confrontation between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the Oval Office on February 28.

In a joint statement, the US declared its commitment to resuming intelligence-sharing and security assistance to Ukraine, which had been previously halted due to the public dispute at the White House.

“Both delegations agreed to name their negotiating teams and immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security,” the statement read.
During a press conference in Jeddah late Tuesday, Rubio expressed hope that Russia would accept the ceasefire proposal.
Ukraine, he stated, was “ready to stop shooting and start talking,” adding that if Russia were to reject the proposal, “then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here.”

“Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations,” Rubio said.

“We’ll take this offer now to the Russians, and we hope they’ll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court,” he added.

Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who was present at the Jeddah talks, is expected to travel to Russia in the coming days, a source with knowledge of the planning told the BBC. However, this plan remains subject to change.
The proposed ceasefire extends beyond Zelensky’s initial call for a partial truce, which had been limited to air and naval conflicts.

Following the meeting, Zelensky expressed gratitude toward Trump, acknowledging “the constructiveness” of the discussions in Jeddah.

In a video message, he urged Russia to demonstrate its willingness to “stop the war or continue the war.”
“It is time for the full truth,” he declared.

The Kremlin has yet to provide an official reaction. However, on Tuesday, Moscow indicated that it would release a statement after Washington briefed it on the outcome of the discussions.
Prominent Russian lawmaker Kostantin Kosachev remarked that any agreements would be made “on our terms, not American.”

Kosachev, chairman of the Federation Council’s international affairs committee, further stated that “real agreements are still being written… at the front,” underscoring that Russian forces were continuing their advance in Ukraine.
Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has seized control of approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory.

Meanwhile, at the White House, Trump told reporters that he planned to engage in discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, expressing hope that he would agree to the ceasefire.
“It takes two to tango, as they say,” Trump remarked, voicing optimism that the deal could be reached in the coming days.

“We have a big meeting with Russia tomorrow, and some great conversations hopefully will ensue,” he said.
Trump also mentioned that he was open to inviting Zelensky back to Washington.
Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, indicated that Moscow had not ruled out further discussions with US representatives in the coming days, according to Russia’s state-owned news agency Tass.
Asked about whether Trump and Zelensky’s relationship was “back on track,” Rubio dismissed the notion, instead emphasizing that “peace” was the true priority.

“This is not Mean Girls, this is not some episode of some television show,” Rubio stated.

“Today people will die in this war, they died yesterday and—sadly—unless there’s a ceasefire, they will die tomorrow.”
The US and Ukrainian teams convened in Jeddah following a series of overnight drone strikes near Moscow, which left at least three people dead. Russian officials argued that these attacks demonstrated Ukraine’s unwillingness to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the war.

As tensions continue, questions remain about the origins of the conflict.
Why did Putin’s Russia invade Ukraine?

In a significant escalation, the Moscow region suffered its largest drone attack since the start of the full-scale war.
Additionally, Ukraine hopes that an agreement with the US regarding critical minerals will help secure Washington’s continued support.

During the talks, Trump and Zelensky reaffirmed their commitment to finalizing a key minerals agreement “as soon as possible,” according to their joint statement.

Ukraine has proposed granting the US access to its rare earth mineral reserves in exchange for American security guarantees. However, this arrangement was previously disrupted by tensions at the White House.
Rubio clarified that the minerals agreement was not a primary focus of Tuesday’s discussions, but had instead been negotiated separately by the US and Ukrainian treasuries.

Also present at the Jeddah meeting was US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
The joint US-Ukraine statement emphasized Kyiv’s stance that Europe must play a role in any future peace process.
Washington’s evolving approach to the conflict—including efforts to sideline European nations in negotiations—has sparked emergency meetings among European leaders in recent weeks.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the “positive development” emerging from Tuesday’s discussions.

The pursuit of a swift resolution to the war in Ukraine has been a major policy objective for the US president.
Trump has increasingly pressured Zelensky to accept a ceasefire, though he has refrained from providing the immediate security guarantees that the Ukrainian leader has insisted upon.

On Friday, Trump issued an unusual warning of additional sanctions against Moscow as part of his efforts to broker a deal. Russia is already heavily sanctioned by the US over the war.

Trump justified the potential new measures by stating that “Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now.”

Meanwhile, hostilities continued on the ground on Tuesday.

In the Moscow region, three men were killed in what Russian officials described as the most extensive drone assault on the Russian capital since the beginning of the full-scale war.

Health authorities reported that an additional 18 people, including three children, sustained injuries in the attacks.
According to Russia’s defense ministry, a total of 337 drones were intercepted across Russian territory, with 91 of them being shot down over the Moscow region.

Ukraine also faced continued bombardment, with officials reporting Russian drone strikes on Kyiv and multiple other regions.

Ukraine’s air force claimed to have intercepted 79 of the 126 drones launched by Russia, along with an Iskander-M ballistic missile.

At the time of reporting, there were no immediate details on casualties resulting from the Ukrainian strikes.

Passengers Recount Harrowing Ordeal as Militants Seize Train in Pakistan

Passengers freed from the Jaffar Express after it was seized by armed militants in Pakistan’s Balochistan province have described the horrifying ordeal as “doomsday scenes.”

“We held our breath throughout the firing, not knowing what would happen next,” said Ishaq Noor, one of the passengers, in an interview with the BBC.

Noor was among more than 400 passengers on board the train traveling from Quetta to Peshawar on Tuesday when militants from the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) launched an attack, taking a number of people hostage. Several individuals, including the train’s driver, were reportedly injured in the assault.

According to military sources, 155 passengers have been rescued and 27 militants killed. However, these figures have not been independently verified, and rescue efforts remain ongoing.

Security forces have mobilized hundreds of troops to free the remaining captives, while authorities have also deployed helicopters and special forces personnel.

The BLA has issued a warning of “severe consequences” should an attempt be made to rescue the hostages.

Officials have revealed that at least 100 of the passengers on the train were members of the security forces. The exact number of individuals still being held hostage remains unclear. More than a dozen of those who have been released required hospital treatment.

Citing security officials, reports suggest that some militants may have left the train, taking an undetermined number of passengers with them into the surrounding mountainous terrain.

On Wednesday, the BBC witnessed dozens of wooden coffins being loaded at Quetta railway station. A railway official explained that these empty coffins were being transported in case they were needed to collect casualties.

Muhammad Ashraf, a passenger traveling from Quetta to Lahore to visit family, managed to escape from the train with a group late Tuesday.

“There was a lot of fear among the passengers. It was a scene of doomsday,” Ashraf recalled.

The group endured a nearly four-hour walk to the nearest railway station, with several men carrying weaker passengers on their shoulders.

“We reached the station with great difficulty because we were tired, and there were children and women with us,” he explained.

Noor, who was on the train with his wife and two children, described the intensity of the initial explosion.

“It was so intense that one of my children fell from the seat,” he said.

Amidst the gunfire, he and his wife each tried to shield one of their children.

“If a bullet comes our way, it will hit us and not the children,” Noor said.

Mushtaq Muhammad, another passenger in the train’s third carriage, described the terror among those on board.

“The attackers were talking to each other in Balochi, and their leader repeatedly told them to ‘keep an eye’ particularly on the security personnel to make sure that [the attackers] do not lose them,” he recounted.

As the night progressed, the militants began releasing some passengers, including Balochistan residents, women, children, and elderly individuals. Noor, who was among those freed, explained that he was released after telling the attackers he was from Turbat city in Balochistan and showing them that he had children and women with him.

Meanwhile, the family of train driver Amjad Yasin anxiously awaits updates after hearing of his injuries.

Yasin has worked as a train driver for 24 years and had previously survived an attack when explosives targeted another train he was driving eight years ago.

“For the past couple of weeks, we were under severe stress that something is about to happen as there was an air of fear,” his brother Amir told the BBC from Quetta.

The BLA has been waging an insurgency for decades, seeking independence for Balochistan. The group has carried out numerous deadly attacks, often targeting police stations, railway lines, and highways.

‘Gravely Concerned’

Pakistan’s counter-insurgency operations in Balochistan have been widely criticized, with allegations of enforced disappearances dating back to the early 2000s. Human rights organizations have accused security forces of carrying out torture and extra-judicial killings—claims the authorities have denied.

Both Pakistani authorities and Western countries, including the UK and the US, have designated the BLA as a terrorist organization.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has expressed deep concern over the train hijacking.

“We strongly urge all relevant stakeholders to forge an urgent rights-based, pro-people consensus on the issues faced by citizens in Balochistan and to find a peaceful, political solution,” the commission stated on X.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has strongly condemned the attack and has called for the immediate release of the remaining passengers.

US Secretary of State Sees Promise in Ukraine’s Partial Ceasefire Proposal Ahead of Saudi Talks

The United States’ top diplomat has expressed optimism about Ukraine’s proposal for a partial ceasefire with Russia, viewing it as a potential step toward ending the ongoing war. This statement comes just before scheduled discussions in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday between US and Ukrainian officials.

“I’m not saying that alone is enough, but it’s the kind of concession you would need to see in order to end the conflict,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday.

During the upcoming negotiations in Jeddah, Kyiv is expected to put forward a proposal for an aerial and naval ceasefire with Russia. However, Moscow has previously dismissed such ideas, arguing that any temporary truce would merely serve as a stalling tactic to prevent Ukraine’s military from collapsing.

In a separate event, at least three individuals lost their lives in what was described as a “massive” overnight drone assault on Moscow and its surrounding areas, according to Governor Andrei Vorobyev. The attack damaged seven apartments in a residential complex.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported that 74 drones aimed at the city were intercepted and shot down. He further stated that debris from a downed drone damaged the roof of one building.

The drone strike led to temporary disruptions in one of Moscow’s district train networks and imposed flight restrictions at the city’s airports.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Saudi Arabia on Monday to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. However, he is not expected to take a formal role in the negotiations between US and Ukrainian representatives.

In a video message late on Monday, Zelensky expressed his hopes for “a practical result” from the discussions, stating that Ukraine’s stance would be “absolutely constructive.”

The Ukrainian delegation at the talks will include Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff, along with the country’s national security adviser and several foreign and defense ministers.

On the US side, Rubio will lead the delegation alongside National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Speaking before his arrival in Jeddah, Rubio emphasized the importance of clarifying Ukraine’s stance on a potential peace agreement. He noted that both sides must prepare for tough compromises if the conflict is to be resolved.

“I’m not going to set any conditions on what they have to or need to do,” he said. “We want to listen to see how far they’re willing to go, and compare that to what the Russians want, and then see how far apart we truly are.”

Rubio stressed that both Ukraine and Russia must acknowledge that “there’s no military solution” to the war and that diplomacy is the only viable path forward.

Meanwhile, reports from Bloomberg and Axios suggest that Witkoff is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow later this week, though the Kremlin has not officially commented on the matter.

The discussions in Jeddah coincide with increased pressure from US President Donald Trump on Zelensky to agree to a ceasefire with Russia. Notably, this push comes without any firm commitments from the US regarding security guarantees for Ukraine.

This meeting marks the first official encounter between US and Ukrainian officials since Zelensky’s contentious visit to the White House last month. That meeting reportedly ended in frustration, leading the US to suspend military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine—a move seen as an attempt to push Kyiv toward negotiations.

Rubio suggested that the suspension of aid could be reversed depending on the outcomes of Tuesday’s discussions.

“The pause came about because we felt that they [Ukraine] were not committed to any sort of peace process,” he explained. “If that changes, obviously our posture can change.”

He added, “The president is going to use whatever tools he has at his disposal to try to get both sides to that table so this war will end.”

Earlier on Monday, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, expressed optimism about the upcoming negotiations, saying he expected “substantial progress.”

When asked if he believed Zelensky would return to the US later in the week to sign a minerals agreement, Witkoff told Fox News, “I am really hopeful. All the signs are very, very positive.”

Zelensky has previously signaled willingness to sign a minerals deal with the US, which would create a joint fund derived from the sale of Ukrainian minerals.

According to Witkoff, the Saudi Arabia talks will cover multiple topics, including security protocols for Ukraine and territorial issues.

He emphasized that, despite the suspension of military aid, the US had not cut off intelligence sharing for any defensive needs that Ukraine might have. Trump also told Fox News on Sunday that he had “just about” lifted the intelligence-sharing freeze on Ukraine.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also spoke with Trump ahead of the Jeddah talks. According to a statement from Downing Street, Starmer conveyed that “he hoped there would be a positive outcome to the talks that would enable US aid and intelligence-sharing to be restarted.”

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and currently controls roughly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.

China Calls for Stronger Ties with India Amid US Trade Tensions

As tensions escalate between China and the United States due to US President Donald Trump’s broad tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing is now advocating for stronger cooperation with India to “oppose hegemonism and power politics” while upholding global norms.

During a press conference on the sidelines of China’s annual parliamentary session in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized the need for India and China to work together. “China and India should be partners that contribute to each other’s success. A cooperative pas de deux (dance involving two people) of the dragon and the elephant is the only right choice for both sides,” he stated.

“To support each other rather than undercut each other, work with each other rather than guard against each other — this is the path that truly serves the fundamental interests of both China and India and their peoples. When China and India join hands, the prospects for greater democracy in international relations and a stronger Global South will improve greatly,” he added.

Wang stressed that the only way forward for both nations is a cooperative partnership, which aligns with their fundamental interests and helps protect global norms. “China stands ready to work with India to sum up past experience and forge a fast forward and advance China-India relations on the track of sound and stable development,” he affirmed.

Wang Highlights ‘Positive Strides’ in India-China Relations

Wang also noted that India-China relations have made “positive strides” and achieved significant progress following a successful meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping last year. The discussions aimed at resolving the four-year-long military standoff in eastern Ladakh.

According to Wang, the leaders of both nations provided strategic direction to enhance bilateral ties during their meeting in Kazan in October 2023. He pointed out that both sides acted upon their leaders’ shared vision by “strengthening exchanges and practical cooperation at all levels.”

Following extensive negotiations, India and China completed the disengagement process by finalizing a withdrawal agreement for troops stationed at Depsang and Demchok, the last two contentious areas in eastern Ladakh. Two days after this agreement was reached, Prime Minister Modi and President Xi held discussions in Kazan on October 23. During this meeting, both leaders agreed to revive multiple dialogue mechanisms to strengthen diplomatic and strategic communication.

Boundary Issues Should Not Define India-China Ties

Additionally, Wang emphasized that as each other’s largest neighbors, India and China share a common goal of advancing their development and revitalization. He insisted that their bilateral relationship should not be overshadowed by border disputes.

“As two ancient civilizations, we have enough wisdom and capability to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas pending a fair and reasonable solution. We should never allow bilateral relations to be defined by the boundary question, or let specific differences affect the overall picture of our bilateral ties,” he remarked.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between India and China. Earlier, Beijing had conveyed its willingness to collaborate with New Delhi to commemorate this milestone and inject fresh momentum into bilateral ties.

Last month, Wang met Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar at the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa. During their discussion, he underscored that restoring mutual trust and achieving win-win cooperation align with the aspirations of both nations.

Jaishankar, in turn, acknowledged the progress made in improving bilateral relations and expressed India’s willingness to strengthen ties. “India values the hard-won progress in improving bilateral relations and is willing to work with China to accelerate the restoration of cooperative mechanisms, enhance cultural exchanges, facilitate people-to-people ties, and jointly maintain peace and stability in the border regions,” he stated.

Jaishankar’s remarks followed Trump’s offer to mediate the longstanding border issue between India and China during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the White House earlier that month. However, India reiterated that such matters should be “resolved bilaterally.”

Mark Carney Takes Charge Amid Canada-U.S. Trade War, Vows Retaliation Against Trump’s Tariffs

Mark Carney has secured a landslide victory to become Canada’s next prime minister, replacing Justin Trudeau. In his first major statement, he has committed to winning the ongoing trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump, vowing to impose retaliatory tariffs on American goods until, in his words, “Americans show us respect.”

Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has announced plans to impose retaliatory electricity tariffs on the U.S. He is set to discuss these measures in a live address, emphasizing that Canada will take firm action in response to U.S. economic pressures.

Canada to Launch Advertising Campaign in U.S.

Ford addressed questions regarding a marketing and advertising campaign in the U.S., stating, “We need to inform the American people.” He emphasized the importance of delivering a strong message to Americans, calling them Canada’s “greatest allies in the fight against these tariffs.”

Tariff Impact Will ‘Reverberate’ Across U.S., Says Energy Minister

Stephen Lecce, Minister of Energy and Electrification, highlighted Canada’s role as a major power exporter to the U.S., stating, “They need our power.” He explained that the objective is to “maximize pressure on America and minimize the impacts on Ontario.” Lecce warned that the repercussions of these tariffs will “reverberate” across the U.S., affecting states that rely on and profit from reselling Canadian power.

Ford: Tariffs Could Add $100 to U.S. Utility Bills

Ford outlined the potential consequences of Ontario’s countermeasures, estimating that 1.5 million homes and businesses in Minnesota, Michigan, and New York would be affected. According to Ford, these states could face a surcharge of up to $400,000 per day, potentially increasing bills for American consumers by approximately $100.

While acknowledging the difficulties this would create, Ford stated he “will not hesitate” to raise the charge further or even halt electricity exports entirely. However, he also expressed regret for the impact on American citizens, stating, “I feel terrible for the American people who did not start this trade war.”

‘We Will Apply Maximum Pressure,’ Says Ford

Ford described the situation as an escalating conflict, noting that President Trump is now targeting steel and aluminum with additional tariffs. He asserted that these trade policies are detrimental to families on both sides of the border and affirmed Ontario’s determination to resist. “We will apply maximum pressure to maximize leverage,” he stated, confirming that Ontario will proceed with a 25% surcharge on electricity exports.

Ford Congratulates Carney, Praises His Leadership

Doug Ford, in his public remarks, congratulated Mark Carney on his victory, expressing optimism about the country’s new leadership. He emphasized the need for decisive action, stating, “It’s never been more important to build big things.” Ford also took a moment to thank Justin Trudeau for his service to the country.

‘Every Tool in the Toolbox’ Will Be Used in Response to U.S. Tariffs

Stephen Lecce, addressing the media, stated that Ontario has been a critical energy supplier to the U.S. for years, helping to “keep the lights on” in American homes, factories, and farms. However, he made it clear that Canada would not stand by idly. “When under attack, we will use every tool in the toolbox,” he declared.

Ontario’s Retaliatory Tariffs to Be Unveiled Soon

Ford is scheduled to present a detailed plan for retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., reinforcing his stance from last week, when he warned that Canada could cut off electricity supplies if President Trump’s tariff policies persisted. Around 1.5 million Americans in Michigan, New York, and Minnesota rely on electricity imported from Canada.

Ford’s statements align with his recent post on X, in which he congratulated Carney and declared, “Together, let’s unleash the Canadian economy and make our country more secure by building big, bold projects—starting with the Ring of Fire.”

U.S. Stock Markets React to Trump’s Tariff Strategy

As U.S. markets opened for trading, investor concerns over Trump’s economic policies intensified. Fears of increased costs, business uncertainty, and economic disruption have contributed to a market downturn.

The S&P 500 dropped by approximately 1.7%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined by 0.7%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq took the biggest hit, falling by 2.8%. The market turbulence comes as optimism about artificial intelligence-driven growth fades and fears of a recession rise, particularly after Trump declined to rule out an economic downturn.

The Meaning Behind Canada’s ‘Elbows Up’ Slogan

In his farewell address, Justin Trudeau drew loud applause when he declared, “Elbows up!” The phrase has gained traction as a rallying cry against Trump’s tariff threats and his recent suggestion that Canada could become the 51st U.S. state.

Canadian actor Mike Myers recently echoed the phrase on Saturday Night Live, mouthing the words while pointing to his elbow. The slogan originates from ice hockey, symbolizing readiness to fight back—a sentiment many Canadians now embrace in response to Trump’s trade policies.

Ford Calls Carney’s Leadership Critical Amid Tariff Conflict

Shortly after Carney’s landslide victory in the Liberal leadership race, Doug Ford extended his congratulations, describing the moment as pivotal. “Your election comes at a critical time as our country continues to stare down the ongoing threat of President Trump’s tariffs,” Ford stated.

The Ontario Premier is expected to further elaborate on his plan to impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, New York, and Minnesota. He has also indicated that, if necessary, he may completely cut off power exports to these states.

What’s Next?

As Canada undergoes a significant political transition, here’s a summary of recent developments and upcoming steps:

  • Mark Carney’s Victory: The former Bank of England governor won 85.9% of the vote in the Liberal leadership race and will be sworn in as prime minister in the coming days.
  • Justin Trudeau’s Departure: Trudeau must formally resign before Carney can take office. He will remain in position until he meets with Governor General Mary Simon.
  • Upcoming Election: A general election must take place by October 20, but it is widely expected to be called sooner.
  • Carney’s First Address: In his victory speech, Carney declared, “Americans should make no mistake… in trade, as in hockey, Canada will win.”
  • International Reactions: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have extended their congratulations to Carney, signaling strong international support for Canada’s new leadership.

Carney’s Background: A Banker Turned Prime Minister

Mark Carney, Canada’s 24th prime minister, has an extensive background in economics and finance.

  • Early Life: Born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Carney grew up in a politically engaged family, with his father once running as a Liberal candidate in Edmonton-South.
  • Education: He studied at Harvard University on a scholarship and later earned a PhD in economics from Oxford University.
  • Career in Banking: Carney served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.
  • Political Entry: Despite previous dismissals of a political career—once joking, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?”—Carney’s expertise in financial crises has now positioned him as Canada’s leader during a tense economic standoff with the U.S.
  • International Influence: He has participated in G20 meetings alongside Trump and chaired the Financial Stability Board. Recalling a past encounter, he remarked, “Trump only respects power… Good luck with that” when discussing efforts to appease the former U.S. president.

Liberal Party Gathers Momentum for Snap Election

Following months of poor polling, Liberals now sense an opportunity for a political resurgence. Carney’s resounding victory—securing more votes than Trudeau did in 2013—has energized the party.

“There’s no sense that we should delay,” said David McGuinty, the federal public safety minister. “I’m really, really excited for what’s coming. And frankly, it’s time for an election.”

Although no official date has been set for the transfer of power from Trudeau to Carney, political insiders anticipate a swift transition, with an election announcement likely to follow shortly after.

As Canada braces for a new chapter under Carney’s leadership, the nation prepares for an intensified trade battle with the U.S., setting the stage for one of the most consequential political and economic showdowns in recent history.

Race to Replace Trudeau: Who Will Lead Canada’s Liberals?

The competition to succeed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in full swing. Leading candidates for the leadership of Trudeau’s ruling Liberal Party, including the globally recognized Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney, are vying to steer Canada through pressing domestic and international challenges, such as escalating trade disputes with the United States.

After a tumultuous year marked by political crises, Trudeau announced in January that he would resign as Liberal leader once his successor was chosen, eventually stepping down as prime minister.

This Sunday, the Liberals will finally count the votes and declare their new leader, a decision that comes as Canada gears up for a general election later this year.

Why is Trudeau stepping down?

Trudeau has led the Liberal Party for more than a decade. He first brought the Liberals to power in 2015, promising “sunny ways” for Canada. Since then, he has been re-elected twice, most recently in 2021, though that victory cost him his governing majority.

During his tenure, he championed progressive causes, including tackling climate change and addressing historic injustices against Indigenous communities. However, economic dissatisfaction has increasingly overshadowed his leadership in recent years. His administration was further shaken when Freeland, who was serving as deputy prime minister and finance minister, unexpectedly resigned just hours before delivering her annual fiscal update.

Trudeau is stepping down as the Liberal Party faces a significant challenge in the upcoming general elections, expected by October. The party has been trailing in polls against the Conservatives, led by right-wing politician Pierre Poilievre. However, recent weeks have seen the gap narrow as Trudeau’s potential successors, such as Carney, take assertive stances on trade tensions with the United States.

Though Trudeau will relinquish his role as Liberal leader after Sunday’s vote, he has not specified a timeline for stepping down as prime minister. His successor will have the authority to request new federal elections at any time—whether within days, weeks, or months.

What role does the US play?

Relations between Canada and the United States have deteriorated under President Donald Trump. Over the past three months, Trump has blamed Canada for illegal immigration into the U.S., threatened to annex Canada as the U.S.’s 51st state, and imposed steep tariffs on Canadian imports. The White House justifies these tariffs as necessary to curb fentanyl smuggling into the U.S.

The heated rhetoric between Trump and Trudeau has stirred nationalist sentiments in Canada. At NHL and NBA games in the country, some Canadian fans have even taken to booing the U.S. national anthem.

These cross-border tensions may have provided an unexpected boost to the Liberal Party, as Conservative leader Poilievre—often compared to Trump—has sought to distance himself from the U.S. president. At a press conference on Tuesday, Poilievre emphasized, “I am not MAGA.”

“Canadian politics is being convulsed by the Trump government’s assertions about Canada’s future as he saw it, and secondly by the tariffs that were very puzzling to a lot of people given the depth of interdependence between the Canadian and American economies,” said Allan Tupper, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia.

Tupper added that Trudeau’s successor would need to be a skilled negotiator, particularly regarding tariffs. “It just may be a different kind of Canada to deal with. It’s going to be more assertive, more nationalistic, and more in charge of its destiny.”

Who are the leading candidates?

Mark Carney

One of the frontrunners in the race, Carney is a former governor of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. His campaign has focused on clean energy, climate policies, and fostering economic growth.

Carney has emphasized his role in helping Canada manage its debt during the 2008 financial crisis and in navigating the British economy through Brexit. He has also advocated leveraging Canada’s natural resources to drive prosperity while positioning the country as a leader in clean energy.

Experts suggest Carney enjoys significant support from Liberal lawmakers and members of Trudeau’s cabinet. His financial expertise makes him a compelling candidate at a time when economic concerns are at the forefront.

“He’s very competent in economics, so with these tariffs, this economic war, a lot of people are supporting him,” said Charles-Etienne Beaudy, a political science professor at the University of Ottawa and author of Radio Trump: How he won the first time.

Carney has not shied away from addressing tensions with the Trump administration. Speaking to CNN in February, he stated, “Despite being insulted on multiple occasions by senior members of the administration, we are not going to reciprocate in those insults.”

Following the announcement of U.S. tariffs last month, Carney has strongly advocated for dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs that would hurt the U.S. while minimizing the impact on Canada.

Chrystia Freeland

Freeland, a former journalist and another leading contender in the race, was one of Trudeau’s most high-profile cabinet ministers before her resignation.

Born to a Ukrainian mother in Alberta, Freeland studied at Harvard University and later worked as a journalist covering Russia and Ukraine. Entering politics in 2013, she quickly rose through the ranks of the Liberal Party, securing key cabinet positions under Trudeau.

She has prior experience negotiating with Trump on trade. As Canada’s foreign minister in 2018, she played a crucial role in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the U.S. and Mexico—a deal that Trump has expressed interest in revisiting. She also clashed with the U.S. administration when it imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports.

Trump has personally targeted Freeland, calling her “totally toxic and not at all conducive to making deals.”

Her resignation in December signaled the beginning of Trudeau’s political decline.

On the campaign trail, Freeland has indicated support for a stricter immigration stance and has backed targeted retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.

Karina Gould

Gould, the youngest woman to ever serve as a Canadian minister, has branded herself as a candidate representing a generational shift in leadership. Launching her campaign in January, she stated that the Liberal Party “needs to embrace this shift too.”

Gould has proposed increasing corporate taxes on large businesses earning over $500 million annually. She argues that this policy would incentivize corporations to reinvest in productivity and business development, or else face higher taxes.

Her top priority, if elected, is resolving Canada’s trade dispute with the U.S. before calling for a general election. Like her competitors, she has taken a tough stance against Trump.

Frank Baylis

A businessman from Montreal, Baylis previously served as a lawmaker from 2015 to 2019. In February, he proposed constructing two pipelines to transport natural gas to Europe and Asia, reducing Canada’s economic reliance on the United States.

Baylis has warned against Canada’s heavy dependence on a single trading partner. He has also criticized Trudeau’s handling of Trump, arguing that Canadian leaders made missteps, including traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet the U.S. president.

“Anybody that’s ever dealt with a bully successfully knows that you don’t give an inch,” Baylis told The Canadian Press last month.

As Canada prepares for new leadership, the next Liberal prime minister will face significant challenges—both at home and abroad. With the U.S. relationship in flux and economic uncertainty looming, the outcome of Sunday’s vote could shape the country’s trajectory for years to come.

Trump Temporarily Eases Tariffs on Canada and Mexico Amid Market Turmoil

U.S. President Donald Trump announced a temporary suspension of steep tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Thursday, March 6, 2025, offering a brief reprieve for businesses and consumers following strong backlash from global markets.

The decision came after the implementation of tariffs of up to 25% on imports from the two neighboring countries on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. The move had caused stock markets to drop significantly, with economists cautioning that such broad tariffs could slow U.S. economic growth and contribute to rising inflation in the near term.

Although the Republican president rejected claims that his trade policies were responsible for market instability, he opted to temporarily pause the tariffs on trade with Canada and Mexico that falls under a regional agreement.

Additionally, Mr. Trump reduced the newly imposed 25% tariff on Canadian potash, a crucial component in fertilizer. U.S. officials noted that their country does not produce large amounts of this resource, making the import levy particularly impactful.

The suspension of these tariffs, which will remain in effect until April 2, follows a similar move a day earlier when the White House announced temporary relief for automakers.

“These changes make conditions much more favorable for our American car manufacturers,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday, March 6, 2025.

However, he emphasized that significant updates would be announced on April 2, when he is expected to introduce “reciprocal tariffs” aimed at addressing what Washington perceives as unfair trade practices. He made it clear that Canadian and Mexican goods could still be subject to new levies after that date.

At the same time, Mr. Trump confirmed that tariffs on steel and aluminum, set to take effect next week, would remain unchanged.

‘Good’ Relationship With Mexico

Explaining the temporary relief for some Mexican imports, Mr. Trump stated on Truth Social that he made the decision “as an accommodation, and out of respect for” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He added, “Our relationship has been a very good one.”

His remarks about Mexico stood in stark contrast to his tense relations with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

On Thursday, March 6, 2025, Mr. Trudeau acknowledged that some industries might receive temporary exemptions but maintained that Canada would remain in a trade conflict with the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

“Our goal remains to get these tariffs, all tariffs removed,” Mr. Trudeau asserted.

‘Economic Reality’

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, described Mr. Trump’s decision to ease tariffs on Mexico as “a recognition of economic reality.”

He explained that the move demonstrated an understanding of how tariffs disrupt supply chains, place financial burdens on consumers, and create uncertainty that markets dislike. “The market doesn’t like them and certainly doesn’t like the uncertainty surrounding them,” Mr. Lincicome told AFP.

Since beginning his second term in January, Mr. Trump has frequently threatened tariffs against both allies and adversaries.

He has defended tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China as necessary measures to curb illegal immigration and combat the trafficking of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid.

However, official data from both Canadian and U.S. government sources indicate that Canada contributes less than 1% of the fentanyl in the illicit U.S. supply. Furthermore, Canada is not a major source of illegal immigration, particularly in comparison to migration across the southern border with Mexico.

Meanwhile, China has rejected U.S. accusations regarding its role in fentanyl trafficking, asserting that the issue is a domestic matter for the U.S. and that tariffs will not address it.

Inflation and Trade Deficit Concerns

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed concerns on Thursday, March 6, 2025, that Mr. Trump’s tariffs would drive up inflation, stating that any effect on prices would likely be temporary.

Mr. Trump has consistently portrayed tariffs as a tool for generating government revenue and correcting trade imbalances.

New government data released on Thursday, March 6, 2025, showed that the U.S. trade deficit had reached an all-time high in January.

The Commerce Department reported that the overall trade deficit of the world’s largest economy surged by 34% to $131.4 billion, driven by a sharp increase in imports.

Analysts suggested that a significant portion of the rise in the trade deficit was due to increased gold imports. However, data also indicated that many businesses had boosted their imports in anticipation of potential new tariffs.

Arab Leaders Approve $53 Billion Gaza Reconstruction Plan in Response to Trump’s Proposal

A $53 billion (£41.4 billion) reconstruction initiative, seen as a counter to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s idea of “taking over Gaza” and relocating over two million Palestinians, has been endorsed by Arab leaders at an emergency summit held in Cairo, Egypt.

“The Egypt plan is now an Arab plan,” declared Ahmed Aboul Gheit, secretary general of the Arab League, following the prolonged meeting.

Without directly mentioning Trump’s proposal, Aboul Gheit emphasized the unified Arab stance against any form of Palestinian displacement, whether voluntary or forced.

Egypt developed a comprehensive blueprint, encapsulated in a 91-page glossy document filled with images depicting green neighborhoods and grand public structures, aiming to provide an alternative to a U.S.-led scheme dubbed the “Middle East Riviera,” which had sparked widespread alarm across the Arab world and beyond.

The new plan extends beyond real estate development, focusing on political solutions and the rights of Palestinians.

Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, in his opening speech, urged for a simultaneous political process alongside the reconstruction effort, advocating for a two-state solution—a Palestinian state coexisting with Israel. This framework is widely recognized by Arab nations and much of the international community as the only viable resolution to the conflict, yet it remains firmly opposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

Under this new proposal, Gaza would temporarily be administered by a “Gaza management committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government,” composed of skilled technocrats.

The document does not clarify what role, if any, Hamas would have in this administration. It only briefly alludes to militant groups as an “obstacle” and suggests that their presence would be addressed if the fundamental causes of the conflict with Israel were resolved.

Opinions among Arab states vary regarding Hamas’ future; some call for its complete dissolution, while others believe that decision should be left to the Palestinian people. Reports suggest that Hamas has acknowledged it will not participate in governing Gaza but remains adamant that it will not disarm.

Netanyahu, who has called Trump’s plan “visionary,” has ruled out any future governance by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

The critical issue of security is addressed by calling for the deployment of international peacekeepers under the United Nations Security Council.

A large-scale international conference is scheduled for next month to secure the necessary funds for the ambitious reconstruction effort.

Wealthy Gulf nations have signaled a willingness to contribute to the massive financial requirement. However, potential donors remain hesitant, unwilling to invest unless assured that their contributions will not be obliterated in another conflict.

The fragility of the current ceasefire, now appearing to be at risk of collapse, only heightens this uncertainty.

The Arab reconstruction plan outlines a three-phase process, beginning with an initial six-month “early recovery stage” focused on clearing the extensive debris and unexploded ordnance. The following two phases are expected to span several years.

During the early stage, approximately 1.5 million displaced Palestinians would be housed in temporary container units. The proposal’s accompanying images showcase these units as well-constructed homes surrounded by landscaped environments.

Trump continues to question, “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His characterization of Gaza as a “demolition site” underscores the devastation in the territory, with the United Nations estimating that 90% of homes are either damaged or destroyed.

Essential services such as schools, hospitals, sewage infrastructure, and electricity grids have been almost entirely obliterated.

Trump further stirred controversy by posting an AI-generated video on his Truth Social account, depicting a gleaming, luxurious vision of Gaza. The video featured a golden statue of himself, Elon Musk snacking on a beach, and shirtless images of Trump and Netanyahu basking in the sun—all set to a catchy tune proclaiming, “Trump Gaza is finally here.”

“They had President Trump in mind,” observed a Western diplomat who attended a briefing on Egypt’s plan at the foreign ministry in Cairo. “It’s very glossy and very well-prepared.”

Egypt’s proposal reportedly draws from a broad array of expertise, incorporating insights from World Bank specialists on sustainability and Dubai developers on hospitality.

Additionally, the blueprint reflects lessons learned from the rebuilding of cities devastated by war, including Hiroshima, Beirut, and Berlin. Egypt’s own experience in constructing its ambitious “New Cairo” project, a costly new administrative capital emerging from the desert, has also played a role in shaping the design.

Trump has stated that he will not “force” his vision on anyone but insists that his plan is “the one that really works.”

Now, it is up to Arab states and their allies to demonstrate that their proposal is the definitive solution.

UN Faces Existential Threat as Trump Administration Pushes for Drastic Funding Cuts

The United Nations, an institution that has endured for nearly eight decades, now faces an existential crisis as the Trump administration continues its threats to significantly cut funding and withdraw from various UN agencies that primarily offer humanitarian aid worldwide.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who wields considerable influence over President Trump, has advocated for the U.S. to leave both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations. Responding to a right-wing political commentator’s post suggesting, “It’s time” for the U.S. to exit NATO and the UN, Musk simply wrote, “I agree.”

Widely described as Trump’s most powerful advisor, Musk has aggressively targeted the U.S. federal bureaucracy in his role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This has raised concerns about whether the UN will be his next target.

The threat to the UN has gained momentum with a group of Republican lawmakers recently introducing a bill calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the organization. They argue that the UN does not align with Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Kul Chandra Gautam, a former UN assistant secretary-general and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, told IPS that if any proof was needed of the Trump-Musk administration’s “mean & malevolent intentions,” this is it.

As part of its cost-cutting measures, the U.S. has decided to terminate funding for several critical global programs, including those targeting polio, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and nutrition. Many of these initiatives have been implemented by reputable international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), UN agencies, governments, and private contractors known for their efficiency and success. Previously, the State Department had deemed these programs essential and granted them waivers to continue receiving funding.

“Here is a case of throwing the baby with the bathwater—millions of children and women cruelly condemned to become sick, malnourished, and dying to satisfy the ego and hubris of the world’s richest man and a would-be Master of the Universe,” Gautam said.

He further noted that this move shattered the illusion of a “waiver” for essential and lifesaving projects, exposing the lack of credibility in Trump and Senator Marco Rubio’s assurances that crucial humanitarian efforts would be protected.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addressed the crisis in a press briefing last week, expressing deep concern.

“I want to start by expressing my deep concern about information received in the last 48 hours by UN agencies—as well as many humanitarian and development NGOs—regarding severe cuts in funding by the United States. These cuts impact a wide range of critical programs,” Guterres said.

He highlighted the far-reaching consequences of the funding reductions, affecting areas ranging from lifesaving humanitarian aid to support for communities recovering from war or natural disasters, as well as development efforts, counterterrorism initiatives, and the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

“The consequences will be especially devastating for vulnerable people around the world,” he warned.

Andreas Bummel, executive director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS that while calls for a U.S. withdrawal from the UN have periodically emerged from the Republican Party, Trump’s position remains uncertain.

“While it seems unlikely, it cannot be ruled out that Trump will support this at some point or at least use the scenario to build up diplomatic pressure,” Bummel said.

He pointed out that the U.S. stands to lose more than it gains from such a move. However, Trump’s decisions are not always rational or aligned with America’s best interests. “Certainly, it can be expected that the U.S. first will reduce or threaten to reduce its UN contributions,” he added.

Currently, the U.S. provides 22 percent of the UN’s budget through assessed contributions. The organization’s 2024 regular and peacekeeping budget stands at $3.59 billion.

When asked whether the U.S. can unilaterally cut its contributions, Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury of Bangladesh, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative, explained that it cannot.

“No, the U.S. cannot do that unilaterally,” Chowdhury told IPS. He clarified that changes in contributions are negotiated in the Committee on Contributions and must be approved by the Fifth Committee, typically by consensus, before being confirmed by the UN General Assembly.

He pointed out that U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke played a crucial role in 2000-2001 in securing an agreement to lower the U.S. contribution from 25% to 22%, which required negotiations with all member states.

Because UN contributions must total 100%, any reduction by one country must be offset by increases from others. However, if the U.S. withdraws from a UN entity, it would no longer be obligated to pay.

“In cases of pending contributions, negotiations would follow,” Chowdhury said. He recalled that in the past, the U.S. has used tactics such as delaying full payments or making partial contributions to exert financial pressure on the UN.

In 2000, Ambassador Holbrooke convinced Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to agree to clear U.S. arrears to the UN in exchange for a reduction in the country’s contribution rate.

When asked how much money the UN stands to lose and which programs would be affected, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on February 28 that the situation remains chaotic.

“We have been informed, and this started a while back but intensified over the last few days, that various agencies have gotten letters. We don’t have a ballpark figure, because this has been done in a bit of a… frankly, in a chaotic way,” Dujarric said.

He provided specific examples of the impact, stating that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has had approximately 50 projects terminated. The agency’s Mexico office, which works to curb fentanyl trafficking, may have to shut down, affecting programs in Central America and the Darien Gap that focus on combating human trafficking.

“The IOM’s (International Organization for Migration) programs in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have basically shut down. Their programs in Haiti are at risk. And our FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) colleagues received 27 termination letters, and the list goes on,” he said.

Guterres has been in contact with the heads of major humanitarian and development agencies to discuss the situation and assess the scale of the crisis. However, Dujarric described the overall outlook as grim.

Agencies are attempting to reach out to their U.S. government counterparts for clarification, but those efforts have yielded little engagement.

“So, we’re continuing to try to seek some clarity. But I can tell you that for our side, our priority and our focus and our determination remain on doing everything we can to continue to provide life-saving aid to those who urgently need it,” Dujarric stated.

He emphasized that the U.S. has been a critical and founding member of the UN for decades, with American generosity helping to lift millions out of poverty, eradicate diseases, and promote global stability.

“The generosity of the American people has helped to lift millions out of poverty, has helped to eradicate diseases, has frankly helped to build a more prosperous and safer world for which Americans benefit and the whole world benefits. We have tried at a fairly senior level to engage, especially on this issue, but I can’t say we’ve detected much interest in engaging on this issue,” he noted.

When asked whether the UN is considering cost-cutting measures as a contingency plan, Dujarric acknowledged that the organization is exploring ways to diversify funding sources and increase efficiency.

“Our colleague, Tom Fletcher, the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, who chairs what we call the Interagency Committee—which brings together UN agencies and NGOs—his message has also been clear, which is that we have to figure out how we can save money,” Dujarric said.

He added that efforts are underway to eliminate inefficiencies, overlaps, and bureaucratic turf wars, recognizing that any organization can find ways to work more effectively.

Trump Imposes Sweeping Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China Amid Economic Concerns

President Donald Trump implemented broad tariffs at midnight on imports from Canada and Mexico while also increasing duties on Chinese goods. In response, Mexico’s president announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on Sunday.

The new tariffs impose a 25% duty on imports from Canada and Mexico. Additionally, Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports, doubling the existing 10% duty imposed in February. Economists have cautioned that such aggressive trade policies could have global repercussions, including inflation that could negatively impact consumers.

Following Trump’s announcement on Monday, the stock market experienced a sharp downturn. The S&P 500 declined by 1.8%, marking its worst performance since December and pushing it into negative territory for the year. On Tuesday, stocks remained under pressure, with the Nasdaq Composite nearing correction territory.

Bernstein analysts predict the auto sector will be particularly hard hit by the tariffs. The firm referred to the policy as “the return of the tariff man,” estimating that it could create a $110 million daily burden for the industry.

“If trade flows remain unchanged, we project an annual impact of up to $40 billion on the U.S. automotive sector,” wrote analyst Daniel Roeska. “However, proactive strategies—such as building up inventory, reallocating production, and reducing imports from Mexico—could mitigate the overall burden. In the initial weeks, the industry may manage to keep additional costs minimal, but prolonged tariffs will increase risks significantly.”

He further warned that in the long run, tariffs could slash free cash flow for the automotive industry by up to 60%.

New England Governors Raise Concerns Over Higher Energy Costs

Governors from New England voiced concerns that Trump’s 10% tariff on energy imports from Canada could drive up gasoline and home heating prices.

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey stated on Monday that the tariffs would cause energy costs to “skyrocket,” estimating an annual cost of $370 million for Massachusetts and $1 billion for the entire New England region.

Maine Governor Janet Mills emphasized that her state’s economy is “deeply intertwined” with Canada, adding that Maine depends more on Canadian home heating oil than any other state. More than 80% of its gasoline and heating oil is imported from Canada.

Trump’s energy tariffs target a wide range of imports, including crude oil, natural gas, refined products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal energy, hydroelectric power, and critical minerals.

Trump Falsely Claims U.S. Banks Are Barred from Canada

On Tuesday, Trump inaccurately stated that American banks are prohibited from operating in Canada, following the imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports.

“Canada doesn’t allow American Banks to do business in Canada, but their banks flood the American Market. Oh, that seems fair to me, doesn’t it?” he posted on Truth Social.

However, despite Canada’s highly regulated banking sector, American banks are permitted to operate within the country.

Trump Encourages Companies to Shift Manufacturing to the U.S.

Trump reiterated that businesses manufacturing in the U.S. would avoid tariffs.

“IF COMPANIES MOVE TO THE UNITED STATES, THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!!!” he stated in a social media post on Tuesday.

Best Buy CEO Warns of Consumer Price Increases

Best Buy CEO Corie Barry cautioned that tariffs are “highly likely” to result in higher consumer prices.

“Trade is critically important to our business and industry; the consumer electronic supply chain is highly global, technical, and complex,” Barry said. “We expect our vendors across our entire assortment will pass along some level of tariff costs to retailers, making price increases for American consumers highly likely.”

Barry revealed that 60% of Best Buy’s product costs originate from China, while Mexico is the company’s second-largest importer.

Mexico Vows to Defend Its Sovereignty

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum announced plans to counter Trump’s tariffs on Sunday. However, she made extensive remarks about the situation on Tuesday, as translated by CNBC.

“No one wins with this decision. On the contrary, it affects the people we represent,” Sheinbaum stated.

She emphasized the importance of U.S.-Mexico economic integration, saying, “We should be integrating our economies to strengthen the region amid the economic and commercial growth of other regions.”

Sheinbaum also insisted that diplomatic discussions should continue. “We will keep the dialog going to find solutions with arguments and rationality.”

“I reiterate: It’s time to defend Mexico and its sovereignty,” she concluded.

Commerce Secretary: Tariffs Aimed at Stopping Drug Flow

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnickstated that the tariffs imposed on Canada and Mexico were not part of a broader trade war but were intended to curb the influx of fentanyl into the U.S.

“The current tariff policy is a drug-related policy. There’s opioids pouring into this country. They’re killing about 75,000 autopsied Americans a year,” Lutnick said in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

He pointed fingers at China and North American trade partners, saying, “China makes the opioid products, and then Mexico and Canada feed them into America, and that’s got to end. They’ve done a nice job on the border, but they haven’t stopped the flow of fentanyl.”

Lutnick suggested that the tariffs could be lifted if significant progress is made in stopping drug trafficking.

“If they can stop the flow of fentanyl, and they can prove to the president they can stop the flow of fentanyl, then of course the president can remove these tariffs,” he stated.

He also differentiated the current tariffs from those set to take effect on April 2, which he described as a “reset” of trade policy focused on regulating the flow of goods and services. Lutnick acknowledged that consumers may experience short-term price increases but assured that the long-term impact would be different.

Oil Prices Decline Amid Tariff Uncertainty

Oil prices dropped on Tuesday morning as Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico coincided with increased supply from OPEC+, dampening the crude oil outlook.

By 9:20 a.m. ET, U.S. crude oil had declined by 70 cents (1.02%) to $67.67 per barrel, while Brent crude was down $1.02 (1.42%) at $70.60 per barrel.

Trump’s tariffs include a 10% duty on energy imports from Canada, a move that could disrupt crude flows in North America. Many U.S. refiners, especially those in the Midwest, rely heavily on heavy crude imports from Canada.

While the energy tariffs are expected to disrupt supply chains, the broader 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico—America’s two largest trading partners—could slow economic growth and reduce oil demand.

Shares of refiners Marathon Petroleum, Phillips 66, and Valero fell in premarket trading following the tariff announcement.

Meanwhile, OPEC+ confirmed on Monday that it will gradually return 2.2 million barrels per day to the market starting in April, further affecting supply-and-demand balances.

Target CEO Warns of Produce Price Hikes

Target CEO Brian Cornell cautioned that the 25% tariffs on Mexican imports could result in higher prices for produce as soon as this week.

During an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Cornell explained that Target relies heavily on Mexican imports for certain fruits and vegetables during winter months.

“Those are categories where we’ll try to protect pricing, but the consumer will likely see price increases over the next couple of days,” Cornell said.

He identified strawberries, avocados, and bananas as key products that could be affected.

“We’re going to try and make sure we can do everything we can to protect pricing, but if there’s a 25% tariff, those prices will go up,” he added.

Europe Seeks United Front on Ukraine as Starmer Calls for Action

The West faces a “crossroads in history,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared at a crucial summit in London on Sunday. The gathering aimed to shift control of negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine war away from the United States and establish a unified European approach, particularly as tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached a breaking point.

“This is not a moment for more talk. It’s time to act,” Starmer emphasized after an intense day of diplomacy in London, where European leaders worked to pave the way for a ceasefire in Ukraine.

The urgency of the meeting, held at Lancaster House, escalated after U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. The encounter alarmed Western allies while seemingly benefiting Moscow. Zelensky and numerous European leaders attended the summit, a critical moment given the heightened anxieties surrounding the conflict.

Starmer revealed that he was collaborating with France and a select group of nations to develop a proposal to halt the hostilities, which would then be presented to the United States.

French President Emmanuel Macron outlined the framework of this initiative in an interview with Le Figaro, stating that France and the UK had suggested a one-month limited ceasefire in Ukraine.

The initial phase of this Franco-British alternative peace plan would enforce a temporary truce covering air, sea, and energy infrastructures, Macron explained to the French publication. The next stage, he added, would address ground forces. CNN sought comments from Downing Street regarding the proposal.

This initiative appears to rival the negotiation process Trump’s administration launched with Russia the previous month. It also acknowledges the possibility that direct negotiations between Trump and Zelensky could reignite tensions rather than resolve them.

Nevertheless, securing American backing remains essential. During a Sunday press conference, Starmer reinforced this notion, stressing that the U.S. was “not an unreliable ally.” His reassurance came after Trump’s heated dispute with Zelensky deeply unsettled European leaders.

Sunday’s summit aimed to reignite momentum in peace efforts that had been making progress throughout the week, only to collapse after Friday’s confrontation. The meeting underscored European unity, as multiple leaders pushed back against the perception that the continent was merely a spectator in the ongoing negotiations.

“In the end, a deal will have to involve Russia, of course it will, but we can’t approach this on the basis that Russia dictates the terms of any security guarantee before we’ve even got to a deal – otherwise, we won’t make any progress at all,” Starmer asserted.

The UK and France have been working to assemble a “coalition of the willing” that would deploy to Ukraine once an agreement is secured. “If a deal is done, it has to be a deal that is then defended,” Starmer said.

Zelensky commended the summit on social media platform X, stating, “Europe’s unity is at an exceptionally high level, one that has not been seen in a long time.” Separately, he asserted that any potential peace agreement should begin with a prisoner exchange “and the return of children.” This step, he argued, would “demonstrate Russia’s true intention for peace.”

Macron highlighted the advantages of the Franco-British ceasefire proposal, noting its straightforward monitoring process. “We know how to measure it,” he stated. “In the event of a ceasefire, it would be very difficult to verify that the front is respected.”

Macron, who Le Figaro reported had spoken with Trump on Friday, clarified that “no European troops” would be deployed to Ukraine “in the coming weeks.” The French newspaper also reported that Macron remained skeptical about any ceasefire agreement negotiated solely between the U.S. and Russia, arguing that he was “convinced that Vladimir Putin will seek to humiliate Ukraine.”

When asked whether he was aware of the proposal, Zelensky responded that he was “aware of everything” but did not explicitly state whether he supported the ceasefire plan.

‘Nobody Wants to See That’

Zelensky received a warm reception from Starmer on Saturday, a stark contrast to the tense welcome he experienced at the White House. Additionally, King Charles met with the Ukrainian leader at his Sandringham estate on Sunday.

The earlier confrontation between Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Zelensky, where they accused him of being ungrateful for American military aid and of risking “World War III” by resisting Russia’s invasion, cast a shadow over the weekend’s diplomatic efforts.

The episode encapsulated Europe’s worst fears. “Nobody wants to see that,” Starmer remarked to the BBC on Sunday. He disclosed that he immediately began reaching out to leaders after witnessing the heated exchange, adding, “My driving purpose has been to bridge this.”

Zelensky returned to Kyiv with more than just diplomatic assurances. On Saturday, Britain announced a plan to expedite$2.8 billion in loans to Ukraine. According to the UK government, the first installment of the funding would be released the following week.

In a Telegram post on Saturday, Zelensky stated, “The money will go toward the production of weapons in Ukraine. This is the fair way: the one who started the war should pay.” He further noted that “the loan will strengthen our defense capabilities.”

On Sunday, Starmer introduced another agreement permitting Ukraine to use £1.6 billion ($2 billion) in UK export finance to procure more than 5,000 advanced air defense missiles, which would be manufactured in Belfast.

‘A Once-in-a-Generation Moment’

“We gather here today because this is a once-in-a-generation moment for the security of Europe, and we all need to step up,” Starmer declared at the summit’s opening.

Downing Street outlined three primary objectives for the meeting: addressing Ukraine’s immediate requirements, securing a “lasting deal” to end the conflict, and formulating robust security guarantees.

“I hope you know that we are all with you and the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes, everyone around this table,” Starmer reassured Zelensky in his opening remarks.

The summit brought together key global figures, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and leaders from various European nations, along with representatives from the European Union and NATO.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni emphasized the need for unity during her discussion with Starmer on Sunday, stressing that it is “very, very important that we avoid the risk that the West divides” over Ukraine.

Both Starmer and Meloni are expected to play crucial roles in advancing the peace process. Their established relationships with Trump may prove instrumental in persuading him to take European proposals seriously.

Norway Faces Pressure to Boost Ukraine Aid Amid European Crisis

Europe finds itself in turmoil following a tense confrontation between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. Reports indicate that the Trump administration is considering halting all military aid to Ukraine, raising concerns across European nations.

Norway, home to the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund valued at €1.7 trillion, has benefited from an estimated €109 billion in war-related profits due to surging gas prices in 2022 and 2023. Despite its vast financial resources, Norway has contributed only €3.35 billion to Ukraine’s war effort. This figure was strongly criticized by leading Swedish and Danish newspaper editors, who described the amount as “pathetic” and “reprehensible.” In comparison, Sweden and Denmark have donated €5.41 billion and €8.05 billion, respectively.

Liberal Party leader Guri Melby emphasized the need for increased contributions, stating on Saturday, “Norway is one of the few countries that has large amounts of money readily available, and we must therefore multiply our support for Ukraine immediately.”

Norway’s former Conservative Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, echoed the call for swift action. She urged a significant and rapid increase in aid, adding, “The government can safely assume there is will in Parliament to give more.”

In response to growing pressure, the Liberal Party and the Socialist Left Party have requested an emergency parliamentary session. However, Euractiv reports that they are now awaiting a formal proposal from the government before proceeding further.

Meanwhile, Sylvi Listhaug, leader of the conservative Progress Party—Norway’s second-largest party according to recent polls—proposed increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. At present, Norway allocates approximately 2% of its GDP to defense.

The leader of the Green Party, which currently polls at 2.7%, took an even more ambitious stance, suggesting that Norway should commit €85.5 billion to support Ukraine.

A spokesperson from Norway’s foreign ministry defended the country’s contributions, asserting, “Norway is among the largest donors to Ukraine. We have so far committed at least NOK 167 billion (€14.7 billion) in support until 2030.” The spokesperson also emphasized the importance of long-term investments, noting that both Ukraine and NATO allies value the predictability of Norway’s assistance. “For 2025, based on a cross-party agreement in Norway’s parliament, we have so far pledged and allocated 35 billion NOK.”

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre assured that additional support measures are forthcoming. “We will present a proposal to increase Ukraine support for parliament soon,” he said. Støre is also set to participate in a meeting of European leaders in London tomorrow.

Calls to Utilize Sovereign Wealth Fund

Since 2001, Norway has adhered to a fiscal rule limiting annual withdrawals from its sovereign wealth fund to 4%, later reduced to 3%. This policy was established under the leadership of Jens Stoltenberg’s first cabinet and has enjoyed broad political backing. Stoltenberg, who previously served as NATO’s Secretary General, now holds the position of Norway’s finance minister, coinciding with renewed scrutiny of the budget rule.

Amid escalating security concerns, discussions on using the sovereign wealth fund to bolster European defense and support Ukraine have gained traction in Norway. One proposal suggests reallocating approximately €300 billion of the fund’s €450 billion in liquid bonds into European defense bonds, with the stipulation that the funds be used exclusively to enhance Europe’s defense capabilities.

On Friday, Solberg reinforced the argument for increased spending, stating that Norway must leverage its oil wealth to strengthen its own defense. Some of her party’s high-ranking members had previously advocated for tighter regulations on how the fund’s money should be allocated. “Peace is more important than shortsightedness and inflation,” she asserted.

However, Stoltenberg cautioned against altering the budgetary framework, warning on February 7, “It is a dangerous idea to break the budgetary rule to give more money to Ukraine.”

Norway’s Expansive Financial Resources

Despite adhering to its fiscal guidelines, Norway remains in a strong financial position to expand its aid commitments.

Sveinung Rotevatn, deputy chair and financial policy lead for the Liberal Party, revealed that a proposal currently under discussion in Norway’s Parliament, the Storting, aims to increase Ukraine support by an additional 100 billion Norwegian kroner this year. If approved, this would elevate Norway’s financial assistance to Ukraine for 2025 from €3 billion to €11.5 billion.

Norway’s Foreign Ministry declined to specify further details on potential increases in aid, instead referring to Prime Minister Støre’s recent statement on the matter.

Rotevatn underscored the urgency of the situation, declaring, “It has become unequivocally clear that all of Europe must shift gears in our support and policy towards Ukraine and to ensure security in Europe.”

Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide reinforced this stance, asserting, “All other policies we pursue assume that we are a free and independent country and that we have a functioning international world order.”

As European nations grapple with the potential consequences of the U.S. withdrawing military support from Ukraine, Norway faces increasing pressure to step up its financial commitments. With vast sovereign wealth at its disposal, the question remains: Will Norway heed the calls for greater contributions, or will it continue to adhere to its longstanding fiscal restraints?

European Leaders Rally Behind Zelenskyy as Trans-Atlantic Ties Fray

Even before the dramatic Oval Office confrontation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, relations between the U.S. and Europe were growing increasingly strained.

Following Friday’s diplomatic breakdown between Trump, Zelenskyy, and Vice President JD Vance, the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance, which has endured for eight decades, appears uncertain.

In a striking rebuke to Trump, European leaders expressed their unwavering support for Zelenskyy. Trump had accused Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and “gambling with World War III” by continuing Ukraine’s resistance against Russia’s invasion.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelenskyy’s resolve, posting on X, “Zelenskyy’s dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President Zelenskyy. We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace.”

Germany’s likely next leader, Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed his stance, emphasizing that “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.” French President Emmanuel Macron also voiced strong support, stressing the importance of respecting the Ukrainians “fighting for their dignity, their independence, for their children and for the security of Europe.”

Perhaps the most striking statement came from European Union foreign minister Kaja Kallas, who asserted, “Today it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”

However, not everyone sided against Trump. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban characterized the tense Oval Office meeting as “difficult” but commended Trump, saying he “stood bravely for peace.” Meanwhile, some observers argued that Zelenskyy escalated tensions unnecessarily by publicly challenging a far more powerful negotiating partner upon whom Ukraine heavily depends.

For Zelenskyy’s supporters, these European leaders’ strong backing reflects a belief that Ukraine’s struggle is not just a localized war but part of a broader hybrid conflict. They contend that Russia’s aggression extends beyond the battlefield, encompassing cyberattacks on Western democracies. They fear that granting Moscow a symbolic victory in Ukraine could embolden further expansionist moves. This concern is heightened by accusations that Trump is undermining the alliance by pressuring U.S. allies while fostering closer ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is widely regarded in Europe as a war criminal.

This growing unease explains why U.S.-Europe relations were fraying even before the recent diplomatic debacle. Over the past several weeks, there have been increasing indications that European powers are seeking greater autonomy from their long-standing reliance on Washington.

Following his center-right Christian Democratic Union party’s victory in Germany’s elections, Merz signaled a shift in priorities. “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.,” he declared. He also questioned whether NATO’s upcoming June summit would maintain the alliance in its current form or require the rapid establishment of an independent European defense structure.

His remarks were particularly striking, given his traditionally pro-American stance. They suggested not only a willingness to boost defense spending—something Trump has long demanded—but also a desire for Europe to chart its own course. “I never thought I would have to say such a thing on a television program,” he admitted.

Yet, many questions remain about what this European military independence would entail. Would it require Europe to match U.S. defense spending within NATO? Leaders like Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have expressed no desire to reduce cooperation with Washington. Alternatively, would the U.S. gradually withdraw from its European commitments altogether?

Regardless of the approach, the challenges are immense. The U.S. military’s deep integration into Europe means that its removal would leave critical gaps in air defense, military satellites, and cyber capabilities. Sven Biscop, a director at the Brussels-based Egmont Institute, warned that such a shift would create “huge holes” in European security infrastructure.

Since World War II, the U.S. has provided military protection to Europe in exchange for influence across the continent. Unraveling this interdependence would require hundreds of billions of dollars—costs that would likely fall on European taxpayers already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and cuts to public services.

Last year, the European Union’s collective defense budget stood at $457 billion, far below the U.S. defense budget of $968 billion. Even Russia’s military spending, at $462 billion, surpassed that of the EU, despite Russia’s smaller economy. Since its invasion of Ukraine three years ago, Moscow has refocused its entire economy on military production.

Achieving full European military deterrence without U.S. support would take a minimum of five years, according to Luigi Scazzieri, assistant director at the London-based Centre for European Reform. “You can probably get something that fills a large part of the gap in two to three years—but only with a lot of urgency,” he added.

Despite these logistical hurdles, Merz’s statements reflect an acknowledgment that trans-Atlantic relations are entering a new phase. Sophia Besch, a senior Europe fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted that the Trump administration “no longer acknowledges shared community of values, shared interests, and puts forward a very ‘great power competition’ view of the world, where Europe is a side player and Russia is an equal.”

Merz is not alone in his call for European self-reliance. Macron has long advocated for Europe to reduce its dependence on Washington. In response to Merz’s remarks, Macron declared, “We are experiencing a historic moment. It can lead to an unprecedented Franco-German agreement.”

Biscop believes that European leaders must act swiftly to organize this shift in defense strategy. He suggested forming a European “war Cabinet” to coordinate efforts, potentially including leaders such as Britain’s Starmer, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and the EU’s von der Leyen.

“They need agility and they need to move fast,” Biscop urged. “Even faster on Ukraine—because the Americans and Russians are already negotiating.”

As tensions between Washington and Europe continue to rise, the question remains whether Europe can truly break free from its historical reliance on U.S. military and economic support. For now, leaders across the continent appear determined to chart a new course—one that may redefine the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Zelensky Urges Stronger U.S. Support After Heated Clash with Trump

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called on the United States to “stand more firmly on our side” following what he described as a “tough dialogue” with former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Zelensky stated that Ukraine is prepared to finalize the U.S.-proposed minerals deal but stressed that Kyiv requires concrete security guarantees from Washington.

His remarks follow a heated exchange at the White House on Friday, during which Trump accused him of “gambling with World War Three.”

Meanwhile, the British government has confirmed that Prime Minister Keir Starmer will host Zelensky at Downing Street today. This meeting comes ahead of an important summit with European leaders set for Sunday.

How U.S. Media Outlets Are Reacting

American media outlets are actively covering the fallout from last night’s public diplomatic standoff between Zelensky and Trump.

Fox News ran the headline “‘World War III’ fears,” previewing an interview with Zelensky conducted by host Bret Baier. In the interview, Baier questioned whether Zelensky believed the relationship with Trump could be salvaged after the confrontation.

Bloomberg’s front page carried the headline: “President Zelensky’s blow-up with Trump leaves allies facing disaster.”

The Washington Post reported that the “fiery meeting” in the Oval Office had “upended Trump’s Russia-Ukraine peace deal.” Meanwhile, CNN focused on the global implications, running the headline: “Western leaders scramble to back Ukraine.”

MSNBC’s Anthony L. Fisher characterized the encounter as a disgraceful moment for the United States, writing, “Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Zelensky was a shameful moment for America.”

The New York Times framed the incident as emblematic of a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy, stating that the meeting “points to Trump’s foreign policy revolution.”

Ukrainian Reactions: ‘Trump Looks Like a Partner for Russia’

The reaction in Ukraine has been swift, particularly from residents in Lviv, located in the western part of the country.

One local commented that Trump does not seem to be aligned with Ukraine’s interests, saying, “He looks like a partner for Russia.”

Another citizen expressed the need for greater European involvement, stating, “Europe should be much more active economically and in terms of military support.”

A third resident noted that he had low expectations ahead of Zelensky’s trip to Washington, suggesting that the recent developments have only reinforced doubts about U.S. commitment.

Observers have pointed out that the once-solid alliance between Ukraine and the U.S. appears to be fracturing, forcing European nations to step in and fill the gaps, particularly in terms of military aid.

The White House meeting itself has drawn mixed interpretations—some viewing it as a moment of necessary bluntness, while others see it as a display of arrogance.

Senator JD Vance’s involvement in the confrontation also stood out. Typically, vice presidents play a more restrained role in high-level diplomatic meetings, but Vance’s aggressive approach surprised many.

Zelensky, appearing visibly frustrated, engaged in the verbal sparring, escalating tensions further. “I’ve never seen anything like last night’s argument in the White House before,” an observer remarked. Some speculate that the confrontation was orchestrated to provoke the Ukrainian leader.

Moscow Watches as U.S.-Ukraine Tensions Rise

The Kremlin has taken a cautious approach in responding to the fallout from the White House meeting. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not commented on the situation, though analysts believe the confrontation played into Moscow’s hands.

During a meeting with Russian security officials, Putin acknowledged that Trump’s stance on Russia offers some “hope” but refrained from making any predictions about whether improved relations with Washington could influence the war in Ukraine.

Despite increased diplomatic engagement between Moscow and the White House, no concrete agreements have emerged, and there is no scheduled meeting between Trump and Putin.

For Russia, the optics of Trump and Vance confronting Zelensky serve as an unexpected strategic advantage. Nevertheless, while rhetoric may be shifting, the war in Ukraine persists, and fears over U.S. aid reductions have yet to materialize.

Putin appears to be treading carefully, ensuring that his comments do not alienate the Trump administration while also maintaining Russia’s longstanding adversarial stance toward the U.S.

A Devastating Visit for Ukraine

Regardless of whether Zelensky was intentionally provoked or should have handled the situation with greater diplomacy, the visit to Washington proved to be disastrous for Ukraine.

Many Ukrainians watching from Kyiv perceived the encounter as a moment of existential importance for their nation.

Yulia, a Kyiv resident, defended Zelensky’s approach, saying, “It was an emotional conversation, but I understand our president. Maybe it wasn’t diplomatic, but it was sincere. It’s about life, we want to live.”

Andriy, a 30-year-old local, criticized Trump and Vance’s conduct. “They were so rude,” he said. “They don’t respect the people of Ukraine.”

Dmytro, 26, voiced concerns that U.S. policy might be shifting in Russia’s favor. “It looks like Washington supports Russia,” he observed.

Inna Sovsun, a Ukrainian member of parliament, described the reaction in Kyiv as one of “shock.”

“It was difficult to watch a president who’s been a victim of Russian aggression being attacked by the leader of the free world,” she said. “It’s painful.”

Moscow Declares Zelensky’s Trip a Failure

Russia has wasted no time in labeling Zelensky’s visit to Washington as a diplomatic disaster.

Maria Zakharova, the Kremlin’s foreign ministry spokeswoman, claimed the Ukrainian leader was “obsessed” with prolonging the war. She reiterated Moscow’s goals of “demilitarizing” Ukraine and permanently annexing occupied territories.

Zakharova also accused Zelensky of being a reckless instigator of global conflict. “With his outrageously rude behavior during his stay in Washington, Zelensky confirmed that he is the most dangerous threat to the world community as an irresponsible instigator of a major war,” she said.

She added that Kyiv and certain European capitals must recognize this reality if there is to be any hope for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Meanwhile, Putin remains silent on the Oval Office incident. While world leaders have weighed in, the Russian president has opted to observe developments from the sidelines.

However, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev did not hold back. Writing on social media, Medvedev said Zelensky had been “slapped down in the Oval Office” and urged Washington to halt military assistance to Ukraine.

Zelensky Calls for U.S. Support as the War Continues

Zelensky has reiterated his plea for stronger U.S. backing, emphasizing that Ukraine needs more than just diplomatic assurances.

Posting on X, he reaffirmed his willingness to sign a minerals deal with Trump but underscored the necessity of clear security commitments from Washington.

His remarks come in the wake of the contentious Oval Office meeting, where he faced sharp criticism from Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump has since characterized the encounter as a misstep for Zelensky, asserting that the Ukrainian leader “overplayed his hand with a weak set of cards.”

Following his Washington visit, Zelensky has arrived in London, where he is set to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Later, he will attend a European summit where Ukraine’s security and military aid will be key discussion points.

Meanwhile, the war rages on in Ukraine. The city of Kharkiv has suffered further casualties following a Russian drone attack, highlighting the ongoing devastation despite the political drama unfolding on the world stage.

European Leaders Rally Behind Zelensky After White House Clash with Trump

European leaders have expressed strong support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky following his tense encounter with former U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House.

Leaders from Germany, France, Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands took to social media to reaffirm their backing for Ukraine. Zelensky responded to each message, personally thanking them for their solidarity.

Zelensky has since traveled to London for a summit hosted by UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose government has emphasized its unwavering commitment to Ukraine, according to Downing Street.

The show of European unity follows a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Friday, where Trump told Zelensky to negotiate a settlement with Russia or risk losing U.S. support.

During the confrontation, Trump criticized Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for the military and political aid the U.S. has provided to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Trump warned him that failing to appreciate this assistance was akin to “gambling with World War Three.”

As international leaders reacted to the confrontation, social media was flooded with messages of support for Ukraine, including statements from the prime ministers of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Zelensky responded to each one with a simple but direct acknowledgment: “Thank you for your support.”

French President Emmanuel Macron strongly condemned Russia’s actions, stating, “There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago—and to keep doing so.”

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof reiterated the Netherlands’ commitment, writing, “We support Ukraine now more than ever. We want a lasting peace and an end to the war of aggression started by Russia. For Ukraine and its people, and for Europe.”

Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed the Ukrainian people’s desire for peace, remarking, “No one wants peace more than the citizens of Ukraine.” His expected successor, Friedrich Merz, reinforced this stance, stating, “We stand with Ukraine” and emphasizing that the world “must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez kept his message straightforward: “Ukraine, Spain stands with you.” Meanwhile, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk addressed Zelensky and the Ukrainian people directly, stating, “Dear [Zelensky], dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelensky’s leadership, stating, “Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people.”

Beyond Europe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assured, “Canada will continue to stand with Ukraine and Ukrainians in achieving a just and lasting peace.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese echoed similar sentiments, writing, “Australia has proudly supported the brave people of Ukraine in their struggle to defend their sovereignty against the brutality of Russian aggression and in support of international law.”

Additional statements of support came from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Sweden, and Slovenia.

However, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán offered a different perspective, siding with Trump. He posted, “Strong men make peace, weak men make war. Today President @realDonaldTrump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest. Thank you, Mr. President!”

Following his confrontation with Trump, Zelensky left the White House earlier than expected. Nevertheless, he later expressed gratitude to Trump on social media, writing, “Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”

On Saturday, Zelensky took to the messaging platform Telegram to emphasize the significance of global attention on Ukraine. “It is very important for us that Ukraine is heard and that no one forgets about it, neither during the war nor after,” he wrote.

He added, “It is important for people in Ukraine to know that they are not alone, that their interests are represented in every country, in every corner of the world.”

In an interview with Fox News after his White House visit, Zelensky admitted that his dispute with Trump was “not good for both sides” but expressed hope that their working relationship could be repaired.

The tense encounter unfolded as the two leaders were set to sign an agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth minerals. However, the conversation took a turn when U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who was present in the meeting, suggested that the war needed to be concluded through diplomatic means.

Zelensky pushed back, asking, “What kind of diplomacy?” He referenced a 2019 ceasefire agreement negotiated before Russia’s full-scale invasion, a deal that took place while Moscow was still backing separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.

Vance, in response, accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and “litigating” the conflict in front of the media. The conversation grew increasingly tense as both sides interrupted each other.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has since called for an urgent summit between the U.S., Europe, and other allies to address the situation in Ukraine.

On Sunday, Sir Keir Starmer is set to host critical talks at Downing Street, where European leaders will discuss potential strategies for enforcing a future peace agreement.

The UK Prime Minister believes that any lasting settlement will require U.S. military assets to play a role in monitoring and enforcing the terms. This could include intelligence-sharing, surveillance efforts, and possibly even air support to deter further aggression from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump and Zelenskyy to Meet Amid Tensions Over Peace Talks and U.S. Policy Shift on Russia

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are set to meet at the White House on Friday following heated exchanges over peace negotiations and an unexpected shift in U.S. policy toward Vladimir Putin and Russia.

As the conflict nears its third anniversary, Trump has referred to Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections” and a “modestly successful comedian,” while adopting a more accommodating stance toward Putin. Trump suggested that the U.S. would negotiate the terms of a settlement with Russia.

Zelenskyy, in response, accused Trump of being trapped in a “web of disinformation,” particularly after preliminary discussions between U.S. and Kremlin officials in Saudi Arabia. Trump also falsely claimed that Ukraine initiated the war, disregarding the fact that Russia launched the invasion.

The key issue at stake, which could influence the course of peace talks, is an agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources. Trump has framed this deal as a means to ensure that American taxpayers receive some form of reimbursement for the financial aid provided to Ukraine during its conflict with Russia.

“We’ll be digging. We’ll be dig, dig, digging. Dig, we must,” Trump stated on Thursday, emphasizing that the U.S. would be actively involved in extracting rare earth minerals in Ukraine. “It’ll be great for Ukraine. It’s like a huge economic development project. So, it’ll be good for both countries.”

Zelenskyy, however, has presented the deal differently, viewing it primarily as a strategy to maintain U.S. support.

Although the agreement does not offer the security guarantees Zelenskyy deems essential for a lasting peace settlement, Trump administration officials argue that significant U.S. investment in Ukraine’s economy could function as a deterrent against further Russian aggression.

“I will meet with President Trump,” Zelenskyy stated on Wednesday. “For me, and for all of us in the world, it is crucial that America’s assistance is not stopped. Strength is essential on the path to peace.”

Details of the Agreement

According to officials familiar with the discussions, the agreement involves U.S.-Ukraine collaboration in extracting valuable minerals and other natural resources from Ukrainian soil.

Unlike previous proposals, this version does not require Ukraine to allocate revenue from mineral sales to repay the U.S. $500 billion—an amount the Trump administration previously described as “payback” for the approximately $183 billion in aid provided to Ukraine, as reported by the U.S. special inspector general overseeing Ukrainian assistance.

Instead, the deal proposes the creation of a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The specifics regarding the management and operation of this fund will be determined through subsequent negotiations.

Much of the success of this initiative will depend on market forces.

“The profitability of the fund is entirely dependent on the success of new investments in Ukraine’s resources,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Meredith Schwartz, a research associate at the same program.

“Therefore, the response of private industry is key to the success of the fund and will determine how much value the United States ultimately derives,” they explained.

However, Ukrainian officials made some concessions. Initially, Kyiv sought firm security guarantees within the agreement, but the finalized framework lacks these provisions.

“However, the idea is that with joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources, the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security,” Baskaran and Schwartz stated.

Should the deal prove successful, they suggest that the U.S. may enhance its mineral security, but tangible benefits might not materialize for decades.

“Mining is a long-term effort—so the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years,” they noted.

Trump himself acknowledged the uncertainty.

“You know, you dig and maybe things aren’t there like you think they’re there,” he remarked on Thursday.

A Shift in Trump’s Rhetoric

After days of harsh criticism directed at Zelenskyy, Trump moderated his stance on Thursday.

When asked whether he still considered Zelenskyy a dictator—an assertion he made just over a week ago—Trump replied, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” before quickly moving on.

Later in the day, Trump also commended Zelenskyy and Ukrainian forces for their resilience in combat.

“We’ve given him a lot of equipment and a lot of money, but they have fought very bravely. No matter how you figure it, they have really fought,” Trump acknowledged. “Somebody has to use that equipment. And they have been very brave in that sense.”

Ukrainian officials advocating for the mineral deal may view Trump’s softened rhetoric as validation of their argument—that signing the agreement could strengthen ties between Kyiv and the Trump administration, whereas delaying it might further strain Trump’s perception of Zelenskyy.

However, whether this positive shift in tone will endure remains uncertain.

“Critical mineral resource access is the latest arena for Trump to focus his transactional methods of diplomacy,” Baskaran and Schwartz stated. “But the viability of the deal remains to be seen as tensions continue to rise between the two world leaders.”

Given Trump’s well-known impatience, some U.S. officials anticipate that slow progress on the deal could lead to frustration.

Additionally, any discord during Friday’s White House meeting could quickly sour Trump’s attitude toward Zelenskyy once again. While Trump is expected to emphasize the economic benefits of the agreement for the U.S., Zelenskyy is likely to push for additional security assurances.

Nonetheless, Trump projected optimism ahead of the meeting.

“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting,” he said. “We’re going to get along really well. Okay. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.”

John E. Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, believes that the very fact that the meeting is taking place is a positive development for Ukraine.

“Zelenskyy’s visit highlights how far he has come from two weeks back, when Trump spoke of seeing Putin as many as three times in the near future, or even last week, when senior Russian and U.S. officials were meeting in Riyadh,” Herbst said. “Yet now it is Zelenskyy, not Putin, in the Oval Office.”

Ongoing Peace Talks

While public attention has largely shifted to negotiations over the mineral deal, discussions aimed at ultimately resolving the war in Ukraine are continuing through separate diplomatic channels.

On Thursday, American and Russian officials convened in Istanbul for a six-hour meeting focused on expanding the staffing of their respective embassies in Moscow and Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously emphasized that such diplomatic expansion was necessary to facilitate cooperation, including efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Officials from both sides described the meeting’s outcome as favorable, predicting that a stronger diplomatic presence could pave the way for broader peace negotiations and a potential summit between Trump and Putin.

As European leaders push for U.S. security guarantees to enforce a truce in Ukraine, Trump has repeatedly asserted his confidence in Putin’s commitment to honoring a peace agreement.

“I’ve known him for a long time now,” Trump said. “I don’t believe he’s going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold.”

However, before meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump added an important qualifier.

“You know, look, it’s trust and verify, let’s call it that,” he remarked.

Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stressed the importance of Trump maintaining a realistic perspective on Putin.

“As President Trump attempts to negotiate a halt to Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s not unreasonable for him to show respect for Mr. Putin (as he has been) if he believes that will make Mr. Putin more likely to agree to concessions,” May said.

“But it’s imperative that President Trump harbor no illusions about Mr. Putin—about his character, ambitions, ideology, and his abiding hatred for American greatness,” he added.

Trump Expresses Optimism on Ukraine War Resolution as Macron Stresses Caution

President Donald Trump voiced optimism that Russia’s war in Ukraine is approaching a resolution as he met with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday, marking the third anniversary of the invasion. However, Macron emphasized the importance of ensuring that any potential agreement with Moscow does not equate to Ukraine’s surrender.

The discussions took place amid significant uncertainty regarding the future of transatlantic relations, as Trump seeks to reshape American foreign policy. His approach has largely sidelined European leadership while he pursues a swift resolution to the conflict in Ukraine.

Although Trump and Macron displayed cordiality at the White House, their respective nations were engaged in a dispute at the United Nations over resolutions that labeled Russia as the aggressor in the war.

Addressing the broader conflict, Trump stated that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin would be open to the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine.

“Yeah, he will accept it,” Trump said to reporters. “I have asked him that question. Look, if we do this deal, he’s not looking for more war.”

Trump also expressed hope that the war could conclude within weeks. He suggested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would soon travel to the United States to finalize an agreement allowing America access to Ukraine’s essential minerals, which are crucial for advanced technology.

The economic deal Trump is promoting is intended to compensate for some of the $180 billion in U.S. aid that has been allocated to Kyiv since the war began. A portion of these funds has been utilized domestically to replenish aging weapons that were supplied to Ukraine.

“It looks like we’re getting very close,” Trump said regarding the minerals deal before his meeting with Macron. He indicated that Zelenskyy might visit Washington this week or next to sign the agreement.

Ukraine’s Security Considerations

Ukraine is also seeking long-term security assurances as part of any settlement. However, Trump did not specify whether the developing agreement would include such commitments from the United States. Instead, he remarked, “Europe is going to make sure nothing happens.”

A French official familiar with the discussions between Macron and Trump indicated that the U.S. president did not oppose the idea of American security guarantees in a potential peace agreement, though the specifics were still being negotiated. The official spoke anonymously, as they were not authorized to comment publicly.

During a joint press conference, Macron acknowledged that European nations must increase their defense efforts but warned against conceding too much to Russia.

“This peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine,” Macron asserted. “It must not mean a ceasefire without guarantees. This peace must allow for Ukrainian sovereignty.”

Macron had ceased direct communication with Putin after Russian forces carried out atrocities in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha early in the conflict. However, he stated that the situation had evolved and expressed hope that Trump’s engagement with Putin could lead to progress.

“Now, there is a big chance because there is a new U.S. administration, so this is a new context,” Macron said. “So there is good reason for President Trump to reengage with President Putin.”

Putin, however, stated on Monday that he had not discussed a detailed resolution to the conflict with Trump. Additionally, Russian and American negotiation teams had not delved into specifics when they met in Saudi Arabia last week.

Putin also mentioned that Russia was open to including European nations—who were initially excluded from the talks in Riyadh—in future peace negotiations.

A Shift in American Foreign Policy

The third anniversary of the war and the discussions at the White House occurred at a time of considerable unease in Europe. Trump’s administration has ushered in a drastic shift in U.S. foreign policy.

Trump has made bold territorial demands involving Greenland, Canada, Gaza, and the Panama Canal. Just over a month into his second term, his “America First” approach has raised concerns among diplomats and former government officials who previously viewed the United States as a pillar of global stability.

Despite occasional missteps, the United States’ military, economic, and diplomatic influence has defined the post-World War II era, particularly after the Soviet Union’s collapse ended the Cold War. Many fear that Trump’s strategy could dismantle these long-standing principles, including those that underpin the United Nations and other international institutions.

“The only conclusion you can draw is that 80 years of policy in standing up against aggressors has just been blown up without any sort of discussion or reflection,” said Ian Kelly, a former U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations and currently a professor at Northwestern University.

Meetings with European Leaders

Trump is set to meet with another key European leader, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, on Thursday.

His approach to Ukraine has unsettled European allies, particularly his repeated criticism of Zelenskyy for not engaging in negotiations to end the war. Trump has also pushed for Ukraine to sign an economic deal granting the U.S. access to its vital mineral resources, which are valuable to American aerospace, medical, and technology industries.

Initially, Zelenskyy resisted the proposal, citing the lack of security guarantees. On Sunday, he wrote on X that “we are making great progress” but insisted that “we want a good economic deal that will be part of a true security guarantee system for Ukraine.”

During a public dispute, Trump accused Zelenskyy of residing in a “Russian-made disinformation space” and labeled him a “dictator,” falsely asserting that Kyiv had instigated the war. In reality, Russia invaded its smaller, less-equipped neighbor in February 2022.

When asked on Monday whether he considered Putin a dictator as well, Trump declined to use the term, stating, “I don’t use those words lightly.”

Differences Among Allies

While Macron and Trump engaged in discussions, including a virtual meeting with fellow Group of Seven (G7) leaders, the United States diverged from its European allies at the United Nations. The U.S. refrained from endorsing resolutions that explicitly blamed Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

The United States ultimately abstained from voting on its own resolution after European countries, led by France, succeeded in amending it to explicitly identify Russia as the aggressor.

Before meeting with Trump, Macron emphasized that he would urge the U.S. president to recognize the shared interest of Americans and Europeans in not appearing weak in front of Putin.

“It’s not you, it’s not your trademark, it’s not in your interest,” Macron said. “How can you then be credible in the face of China if you’re weak in the face of Putin?”

Despite this stance, Trump has indicated his desire for Russia to rejoin the G7, from which it was expelled in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea.

“I really believe he wants to make a deal,” Trump said regarding Putin. “I may be wrong, but I believe he wants to make a deal.”

Conservatives Win Narrow Victory in Germany as Far-Right AfD Sees Historic Surge

The opposition conservatives, led by Friedrich Merz, secured a modest victory in Germany’s election on Sunday, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) saw its support double, marking the strongest performance for an extreme-right party since World War II, according to projections.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz acknowledged defeat for his center-left Social Democrats, calling it “a bitter election result.” Projections from ARD and ZDF public television indicated that his party had finished in third place, marking its worst postwar performance in a national parliamentary election.

Merz expressed his intention to form a coalition government by Easter, though assembling such an alliance is expected to be challenging.

A Discontented Electorate

The election was held seven months ahead of schedule after Scholz’s unpopular coalition collapsed in November. His three-year tenure had been plagued by internal divisions, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among voters. However, there was little enthusiasm for any of the candidates.

Key concerns during the campaign included the prolonged economic stagnation in Europe’s largest economy and the pressure to control migration. Merz, in recent weeks, had strongly advocated for stricter immigration policies, fueling debate. Additionally, uncertainty surrounding Ukraine’s future and Europe’s alliance with the United States added to voter concerns.

As the most populous country in the European Union and a leading NATO member, Germany plays a crucial role in shaping Europe’s responses to global challenges. It has been the second-largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, following the United States. The outcome of the election is expected to influence Germany’s stance on issues such as U.S. foreign policy under a potential new Trump administration.

According to projections based on exit polls and preliminary results, Merz’s Union bloc garnered around 28.5% of the vote, while the anti-immigration AfD received approximately 20.5%—nearly double its 2021 result.

Scholz’s Social Democrats managed just over 16%, significantly lower than their previous election performance and worse than their postwar low of 20.5% in 2017. The Greens, who had been part of the outgoing coalition government, secured about 12%.

Among the smaller parties, the hard-left Left Party showed resilience, making a comeback with up to 9% of the vote. The pro-business Free Democrats, also a part of the collapsed government, appeared poised to lose their parliamentary representation, with support hovering around 4.5%. Meanwhile, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) was on the brink of the 5% threshold required to enter parliament.

Merz Faces Tough Road Ahead

The ability of Merz to form a coalition government depends on whether he can secure a majority with the Social Democrats or if a second partner, likely the Greens, will be necessary. The inclusion of the BSW in parliament could also influence coalition dynamics.

“The most important thing is to reestablish a viable government in Germany as quickly as possible,” Merz emphasized.

“I am aware of the responsibility,” he stated. “I am also aware of the scale of the task that now lies ahead of us. I approach it with the utmost respect, and I know that it will not be easy.”

Merz also warned that prolonged coalition negotiations would be detrimental. “The world out there isn’t waiting for us, and it isn’t waiting for long-drawn-out coalition talks and negotiations,” he told his cheering supporters.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, urged Merz to adopt a more moderate approach following an intense campaign.

“We have seen the center is weakened overall, and everyone should look at themselves and ask whether they didn’t contribute to that,” Habeck remarked. “Now he must see that he acts like a chancellor.”

Despite its role in Scholz’s unpopular administration, the Greens fared relatively well compared to their coalition partners. Matthias Miersch, the Social Democrats’ general secretary, admitted that their defeat had been long in the making. “This election wasn’t lost in the last eight weeks,” he observed.

A Triumphant Yet Isolated Far-Right Party

AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla celebrated the party’s historic gains, addressing enthusiastic supporters. “We have achieved something historic today,” he declared.

“We are now the political center and we have left the fringes behind us,” Chrupalla asserted. AfD’sprevious best result was 12.6% in 2017 when it first entered parliament.

Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor, signaled the party’s openness to coalition talks with Merz’s conservatives. “We are open for coalition negotiations” with the Union, she said, adding, “Otherwise, no change of policy is possible in Germany.”

However, Merz and other mainstream leaders have consistently rejected working with AfD, and he reiterated this stance in a televised discussion with Weidel and other political leaders after the election.

Weidel suggested that AfD would not need to compromise much in any theoretical coalition, arguing that the Union had largely adopted its policies. She dismissed Merz’s victory as hollow, stating, “It won’t be able to implement it with left-wing parties.”

She predicted instability if Merz formed an alliance with the Social Democrats and the Greens. “It will be an unstable government that doesn’t last four years, there will be an interim Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and in the coming years, we will overtake the Union,” Weidel claimed.

Merz dismissed the possibility of a coalition with AfD, emphasizing that their policy positions were fundamentally at odds. “We have fundamentally different views, for example, on foreign policy, on security policy, in many other areas, regarding Europe, the euro, NATO,” he stated.

“You want the opposite of what we want, so there will be no cooperation,” he added.

Scholz also condemned AfD’s rising influence, asserting, “That must never be something that we will accept. I will not accept it and never will.”

The election saw more than 59 million eligible voters participate in choosing the 630 members of the Bundestag, Germany’s lower house of parliament, who will take their seats under the iconic glass dome of Berlin’s Reichstag building.

Haley Criticizes Trump Over Ukraine Comments, Calls Remarks “Russian Talking Points”

Former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley took issue with President Trump’s recent remarks about Ukraine and its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. She criticized Trump for his stance on the ongoing war in Eastern Europe and his negative comments about Zelensky, calling them “classic Russian talking points” and “exactly what Putin wants.”

On Tuesday, Trump appeared to place blame on Zelensky and Ukraine’s leadership for the war, which is now nearing its third anniversary. The following day, he reinforced his criticism, stating that Zelensky had done a “terrible job” leading the embattled country. Trump also accused Ukraine’s president of exploiting Washington, pointing to the extensive financial aid the U.S. has provided over the past three years.

Haley, who withdrew from the 2024 race and later endorsed Trump, took issue with his statements. As a strong advocate for U.S. foreign policy interests, she has consistently supported Ukraine and has argued that aiding Kyiv aligns with America’s national security priorities.

Trump’s criticisms of Zelensky coincided with a meeting in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, where U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz, engaged in discussions with Russian representatives. The talks aimed to explore potential peace negotiations and a re-establishment of diplomatic relations, which had weakened following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Notably, Ukraine was not represented in the meeting.

The following day, Trump escalated his attacks, referring to Zelensky as a “dictator” and accusing him of failing to hold nationwide elections. He also claimed that Zelensky’s approval rating had plummeted to single digits. However, under Ukraine’s martial law, elections are not permitted. A survey published Wednesday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology indicated that 57 percent of Ukrainians still trust their president.

Zelensky did not remain silent in the face of Trump’s remarks. In response to Trump’s Tuesday comments, he fired back, stating that the former U.S. president was operating within a Russian “disinformation space.”

Haley’s criticism of Trump aligns with her longstanding foreign policy views. Since joining the Hudson Institute think tank after exiting the presidential race, she has maintained that supporting Ukraine is vital to U.S. interests. She has also voiced her backing for Ukraine’s eventual inclusion in NATO, further underscoring her commitment to Kyiv.

Trump’s recent remarks on Ukraine have not only drawn pushback from Haley but also from his former vice president and one-time 2024 primary rival, Mike Pence.

“Mr. President, Ukraine did not ‘start’ this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth,” Pence stated in a pointed message on Wednesday.

Some Republican senators have also expressed concerns over Trump’s rhetoric. Many have defended Zelensky’s leadership, emphasizing that Russia was the aggressor in 2022, eight years after annexing Crimea.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Kyiv with Senate Democrats, acknowledged Zelensky’s challenges but praised his leadership. “Zelensky is frustrated, but he’s also been the right head of state for the time. He’s kept a nation together focused on Russian occupiers, and I think we should give them a fair amount of credit for that work,” Tillis said.

Russia and U.S. Agree to Work Toward Ending Ukraine War and Strengthening Ties

Russia and the United States reached an agreement on Tuesday to begin efforts toward ending the war in Ukraine and enhancing their diplomatic and economic relations, according to statements from both nations’ top diplomats. This marks a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump.

In an interview with The Associated Press following the discussions, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined three primary objectives that both parties broadly agreed upon. These include restoring staffing levels at their respective embassies in Washington and Moscow, forming a high-level team to assist in Ukraine peace negotiations, and exploring opportunities for closer diplomatic and economic ties.

However, Rubio emphasized that the meeting, which included his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov and senior officials from both sides, was merely the beginning of a dialogue, with substantial work still ahead.

Lavrov echoed this sentiment, telling reporters that “the conversation was very useful.” He further stated, “We not only listened, but also heard each other.”

Among those present at the meeting were Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz, and special Mideast envoy Steven Witkoff, along with Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov.

Despite the significant discussions, no Ukrainian representatives were involved. The talks took place as Ukraine continues to struggle in the face of superior Russian military strength in a prolonged conflict that began nearly three years ago.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made it clear that his country would not recognize any conclusions reached in the talks, given that Kyiv had no participation. In response, he postponed his planned visit to Saudi Arabia, originally scheduled for Wednesday.

European allies also voiced concerns about potentially being sidelined in the discussions.

Trump, however, showed little tolerance for Ukraine’s complaints about being excluded. He criticized Ukraine’s leaders for failing to prevent the war, implying that they should have made compromises with Russia before the full-scale invasion in 2022.

“Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you been there for three years. You should have ended it three years ago,” Trump remarked at a news conference at his Florida residence. “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

Efforts to Improve U.S.-Russia Relations

Relations between the U.S. and Russia have deteriorated significantly over the years, reaching their lowest point in decades. The decline began with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and worsened with Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The U.S., in coordination with European nations, imposed extensive sanctions on Russia to weaken its economy. Additionally, diplomatic tensions escalated as both nations expelled large numbers of each other’s diplomats and implemented restrictions on their embassies.

Rubio suggested on Tuesday that resolving the war in Ukraine could serve as a gateway to unlocking “incredible opportunities” for U.S.-Russia cooperation on mutual interests. He expressed optimism that such collaboration could be beneficial for global stability and lead to improved bilateral relations in the long term.

His remarks signified a striking shift in U.S. policy toward Russia. Under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, Washington spearheaded global efforts to isolate Moscow diplomatically and economically.

Tuesday’s discussions were also intended to lay the groundwork for a potential summit between Trump and Putin. However, according to Ushakov and Waltz, no date has been set for such a meeting. Ushakov indicated that a summit was “unlikely” to occur next week, while Waltz suggested that an arrangement could be made in the coming weeks.

Speaking to reporters post-meeting, Lavrov reiterated the same three objectives outlined by Rubio. He further stated that Washington and Moscow agreed to assign representatives for “regular consultations” on Ukraine.

“I have reason to believe that the American side has started to better understand our position,” Lavrov remarked.

This meeting marked the most extensive diplomatic engagement between the two nations since Russia launched its invasion on February 24, 2022. Previously, Lavrov and then-U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had only engaged in brief discussions on the sidelines of a G-20 meeting in India nearly two years ago, during a period of heightened tensions.

Concerns Over Being Sidelined

The recent U.S. diplomatic push regarding the Ukraine war has left Kyiv and key Western allies scrambling to ensure they are involved in any decisions. Many fear that Washington and Moscow might pursue an agreement that does not align with their interests.

Ukraine’s exclusion from Tuesday’s discussions frustrated many in the country. In response, France called an emergency meeting of European Union member states and the United Kingdom on Monday to deliberate over the war. During Biden’s presidency, U.S. policy was firm in ensuring Ukraine’s participation in such negotiations.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce clarified that the talks were designed to gauge Russia’s seriousness about achieving peace and to assess whether formal negotiations could commence.

Rubio assured that there would be “engagement and consultation with Ukraine, with our partners in Europe and others. But ultimately, the Russian side will be indispensable to this effort.”

He further acknowledged that ending the war would require concessions from all parties and emphasized that the U.S. “is not going to predetermine” what those concessions might be.

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested last week that NATO membership for Ukraine was unrealistic. He also hinted that Kyiv may need to abandon its goal of reclaiming all territories lost to Russia—two critical demands from Putin’s side.

French President Emmanuel Macron disclosed that he had phone conversations with both Trump and Zelenskyy after Monday’s European meeting.

“We seek a strong and lasting peace in Ukraine,” Macron wrote on the social media platform X. “To achieve this, Russia must end its aggression, and this must be accompanied by strong and credible security guarantees for the Ukrainians.” He pledged to “work on this together with all Europeans, Americans, and Ukrainians.”

Saudi Arabia’s Role in the Talks

The meeting was held at the Diriyah Palace in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, highlighting the kingdom’s aspirations to be a major diplomatic force. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been actively working to bolster his international standing, particularly after his reputation was damaged by the 2018 killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Saudi state media reported that the discussions were held under the prince’s directive. Like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia has maintained strong relations with Russia throughout the Ukraine war, both through its participation in the OPEC+ oil cartel and diplomatic engagements.

Saudi Arabia has also played a role in prisoner exchanges and hosted Zelenskyy during an Arab League summit in 2023.

However, Zelenskyy postponed his visit to Saudi Arabia this week, possibly to avoid any perception that his trip was linked to the U.S.-Russia talks, given Ukraine’s exclusion. His visit has been rescheduled for March 10.

Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine

Despite diplomatic efforts, Russia has continued its military offensive against Ukraine. According to Ukraine’s military, Russian forces launched a large-scale drone attack overnight.

The Ukrainian air force reported that Russian troops deployed 176 drones, most of which were intercepted or disabled through electronic jamming.

One Russian drone managed to hit a residential building in Dolynska, located in Ukraine’s Kirovohrad region. As a result, a mother and her two children were injured, prompting the evacuation of 38 apartments, as confirmed by the regional administration.

Trump Seeks Half of Ukraine’s Mineral Revenue in Exchange for Security Guarantees

Former U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly seeking half of the revenue from Ukraine’s mineral resources and veto power over licensing in exchange for providing security guarantees if a peace agreement is reached between Moscow and Kyiv, according to leaked documents.

Trump had previously suggested that Ukraine should compensate the U.S. for financial and military support by granting Washington access to its vast but largely untapped rare earth mineral reserves. However, newly revealed documents indicate that a potential deal could extend U.S. access beyond rare earths to Ukraine’s ports, infrastructure, and oil and gas resources.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed willingness to negotiate a deal with Trump that involves U.S. participation in the development of Ukraine’s significant deposits of rare earth minerals and other crucial resources.

The Kremlin responded swiftly to these reports, asserting that they highlight how the U.S. is no longer offering aid to Ukraine without conditions. A Kremlin spokesperson further stated that Russia is opposed to Trump providing any form of assistance to Kyiv.

However, according to a newly surfaced draft agreement obtained by The Telegraph, the U.S. and Ukraine would establish a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”

The document, labeled “Privileged & Confidential” and dated February 7, reportedly outlines terms regarding Ukraine’s economic assets, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, and other infrastructure (as agreed).”

Under the proposed agreement, the U.S. would receive 50 percent of Ukraine’s recurring revenues from resource extraction, along with half of the financial value from “all new licenses issued to third parties” for future resource monetization, The Telegraph reported.

The contract, which was allegedly drafted by private legal firms rather than the U.S. Department of State or the Department of Commerce, further specifies: “For all future licenses, the U.S. will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals.”

According to the documents seen by The Telegraph, the joint investment fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” for all future licenses and projects.

Rare earth minerals, a group of 17 metals, play a critical role in modern technology, as they are used in magnets that convert power into motion for applications such as electric vehicles, smartphones, missile systems, and various electronics. Currently, there are no viable substitutes for these essential materials.

The U.S. Geological Survey classifies 50 minerals as critical, including multiple rare earth elements, nickel, and lithium.

Ukraine possesses deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals that the European Union has identified as critical, according to data from Ukraine’s Economy Ministry. These resources include industrial and construction materials, ferroalloys, precious and non-ferrous metals, and some rare earth elements.

Zelensky recently stated that Russian forces currently control approximately half of Ukraine’s rare earth mineral deposits.

Ukraine is also known for its significant coal reserves. However, much of this coal-rich land is now under Russian occupation.

In addition to rare earth elements, Ukraine is regarded as a potential key supplier of lithium, beryllium, manganese, gallium, zirconium, graphite, apatite, fluorite, and nickel, according to the World Economic Forum.

The ongoing war has inflicted severe destruction across Ukraine, with Russia now controlling roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine’s coal reserves, which were once essential for its steel industry, are largely concentrated in the east—an area that has been largely lost to Russian occupation.

According to estimates by Ukrainian think tanks We Build Ukraine and the National Institute of Strategic Studies, roughly 40 percent of Ukraine’s metal resources are now under Russian control, based on data from the first half of 2024.

The specifics of any agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine will likely be refined in future discussions between officials from both countries.

Sir John Major Warns of Growing Threats to Democracy Amid U.S. Isolationism

Sir John Major has cautioned that democracy is at risk as the United States retreats from its global leadership role.

The former British prime minister expressed concern that President Donald Trump’s policy of American “isolation” is leaving a power vacuum, potentially emboldening nations such as Russia and China.

Sir John, who led the UK from 1990 to 1997, remarked that the progress achieved since the Soviet Union’s collapse was now being undone. He asserted that Russia was likely to invade other countries in the near future. “There is no doubt in my mind that democracy has been in modest decline over the last 18 years,” he said, emphasizing that “ugly nationalism” was emerging, contributing to an increasingly unstable global situation.

His warning coincides with preparations by European leaders for an emergency summit on the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. and Russian officials are set to engage in peace talks, raising concerns that European nations, including Ukraine, are being excluded from negotiations.

Sir John also dismissed U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s recent criticism of Europe’s record on free speech. He argued that such remarks should have been directed at Moscow or Beijing instead. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, he stated, “It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

He further condemned Russia’s suppression of dissent, saying, “In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or—on a statistically unlikely level—fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow.”

Sir John highlighted the shifting geopolitical landscape, stating, “The world is changing and may not be reshaping in a way that is congenial to the West.” He pointed to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine as evidence that past diplomatic gains were being undone. “Many of the gains we made over recent years, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed, and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine,” he said. He warned that if Russia succeeded in its objectives in Ukraine, “no doubt they’d be elsewhere before too long.”

Discussing the broader decline of democracy, Sir John reiterated, “There is an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right… So it is a very unsettled time.”

Addressing domestic political matters, the former Conservative leader acknowledged the economic difficulties faced by the UK government, particularly Chancellor Rachel Reeves. However, he suggested that the current global climate might necessitate increased defense spending. “It’s very, very easy to say from outside government, ‘I’d just do this and I’d spend all this money,'” he said. “I would prefer to say I would realise in my plans that we have to make a very material increase in the level of defence expenditure and do it as a priority as soon as it is credible to do so.”

Speaking separately on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg program, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds emphasized the need for the UK and Europe to respond to U.S. calls for greater contributions toward their “collective defense” in the face of “greater threats.”

Reynolds confirmed that the government would outline a roadmap to increase defense spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of the nation’s economic output. However, he did not specify a timeline for achieving this target.

Despite growing tensions between the U.S. and its allies regarding the Ukraine conflict, Reynolds maintained that there was “still a great deal of common ground” between the nations.

Sir John has voiced his concerns on multiple occasions in recent years, particularly regarding Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2022. In the early stages of the war, he joined former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others in signing a petition demanding that Vladimir Putin face a Nuremberg-style trial for war crimes over his actions in Ukraine.

Rubio: Ukraine and Europe Must Be Part of Any Real Peace Talks with Russia

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on Sunday that Ukraine and Europe would be included in any “real negotiations” to end Moscow’s war, emphasizing that upcoming U.S.-Russia talks would test Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sincerity about peace.

Speaking in an interview with CBS, Rubio sought to reassure European leaders who had expressed concerns about being excluded from the initial discussions between the U.S. and Russia, which are set to take place in Saudi Arabia. He clarified that a formal negotiation process had not yet begun, but if it progressed, Ukraine and other European nations would be included.

A report from Reuters earlier on Sunday revealed that U.S. officials had sent European counterparts a questionnaire, inquiring about the number of troops they could contribute to enforcing a potential peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

“President Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin last week, and in it, Vladimir Putin expressed his interest in peace, and the president expressed his desire to see an end to this conflict in a way that was enduring and that protected Ukrainian sovereignty,” Rubio said on CBS’s Meet the Press.

“Now, obviously it has to be followed up by action, so the next few weeks and days will determine whether it’s serious or not. Ultimately, one phone call does not make peace,” he added.

U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and national security adviser Mike Waltz were scheduled to depart for Saudi Arabia on Sunday evening, Witkoff confirmed during an interview with Fox News.

Rubio noted that his trip to Saudi Arabia had been planned earlier as part of official travel, and the final composition of the Russian delegation remained uncertain.

The discussions in Saudi Arabia coincide with U.S. efforts to negotiate a deal with Kyiv, aimed at opening Ukraine’s natural resources to U.S. investment. In an interview with NBC aired on Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy raised concerns over whether mineral-rich areas controlled by Russia would be handed over to Putin.

Former President Donald Trump, who spoke with Putin last Wednesday and later stated that the Russian leader was seeking peace, reiterated on Sunday his confidence that Putin would not attempt to seize all of Ukraine.

“That would have caused me a big problem, because you just can’t let that happen. I think he wants to end it,” Trump told reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Trump also assured that Zelenskiy would play a role in the discussions to bring the war to an end.

Europe’s Role in Peace Talks Questioned

Despite Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, implying at the Munich Security Conference that European nations might not have a role in peace talks, both Rubio and Witkoff dismissed concerns that Ukraine and other European leaders would be excluded from negotiations.

In an interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, Witkoff pointed out that Ukrainian officials had engaged with multiple U.S. representatives at the Munich conference and that Trump himself had spoken with Zelenskiy just last week.

Rubio reiterated that meaningful negotiations would inevitably involve Ukraine and Europe.

“Ultimately, it will reach a point—if it’s real negotiations, and we’re not there yet—but if that were to happen, Ukraine will have to be involved because they’re the ones that were invaded, and the Europeans will have to be involved because they have sanctions on Putin and Russia as well,” Rubio said.

“We’re just not there yet,” he added.

French President Emmanuel Macron is set to host European leaders on Monday for an emergency summit on the Ukraine war, according to his office, following Kellogg’s remarks.

European officials have been taken aback by the Trump administration’s recent approach toward Ukraine, Russia, and European defense. Their primary concern is whether they can still rely on U.S. military support, fearing that Trump might broker a Ukraine peace deal with Putin that compromises Kyiv’s security and weakens broader European defense interests.

When asked whether he had discussed the possibility of lifting sanctions on Russia during a Saturday phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Rubio declined to confirm details, stating only that they “did not go into any details.”

Following the call, Moscow announced that the two had discussed removing “unilateral barriers” imposed by the previous U.S. administration on U.S.-Russia relations.

Rubio acknowledged that he had addressed the “difficult” working conditions of the U.S. embassy in Moscow with Lavrov. He noted that for any progress to be made in Ukraine peace efforts, both Russia and the U.S. needed to maintain properly functioning embassies in each other’s countries.

Europe’s Population Shift: Decline Expected Across Most Countries by 2100

A new map illustrates the expected changes in population levels across European nations from now until the year 2100. The data is derived from the UN World Population Prospects 2024, specifically using the medium variant estimates.

Population Trends in Europe

For several decades, birth rates across Europe have been below the replacement rate required to maintain stable population levels. This trend is expected to continue and intensify in the coming years. Consequently, most European nations are projected to see a decline in population by the end of the century.

The most populous nations on the continent are expected to experience significant shifts. Germany is projected to lose 13.8 million people, Poland will see a decrease of 18.8 million, and Italy is expected to shrink by 23.8 million.

Eastern Europe has been experiencing population declines since the 1990s, and this pattern is anticipated to accelerate further throughout the century. Russia and Ukraine combined are expected to see their populations drop by 40 million people by 2100.

Despite these overall trends, migration—both within Europe and from outside the continent—could help mitigate population loss in some countries. Nations such as the United Kingdom and France are expected to grow rather than shrink due to migration. The UK’s population is projected to increase by 4.8 million, while France is expected to see a growth of 1.8 million.

However, this trend of population growth is expected to be limited to only a few countries. According to the UN’s estimates, just seven European nations will have a larger population in 2100 compared to 2025.

It is essential to note that these are estimates, and projections can differ based on the data source. While the UN suggests a general decline across most of Europe, Eurostat—the official statistical office of the European Union—has a slightly more optimistic outlook. Eurostat’s projections from 2022 indicate that more European countries will experience population growth than the UN anticipates.

Economic and Social Implications for Europe

A declining population presents significant challenges for economies across Europe. Economic systems are not designed to accommodate shrinking populations. A decrease in population directly translates to reduced consumer demand, which is a vital driver of economic growth.

Additionally, a smaller population results in a reduced tax base, which directly impacts the funding of Europe’s extensive social security programs. Many European nations are known for their robust social welfare systems, which could face financial strain if fewer people contribute to tax revenues.

For decades, migration from Asia and the Middle East has played a crucial role in sustaining population growth across Europe. However, the impact of international migration as a population booster is expected to diminish sooner than many anticipate.

Eurostat’s projections suggest that Europe’s population will peak in 2026. After that point, overall population levels are expected to decline, marking a significant demographic shift for the continent.

Munich Security Conference Highlights Growing NATO Divisions Amid Ukraine Crisis

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, and nearly 60 world leaders and policymakers are set to gather in Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC) over the next three days.

For nearly two decades, this event has been a focal point for global security discussions, but this year, the stakes appear higher than ever. A senior Western official described the current global security climate as “the most dangerous and contested time” of their career.

Cracks in the International Order

The established global security structure, often referred to as the International Rules-based Order, is facing unprecedented strain. Some argue it is already beginning to collapse.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, much of the world condemned the move. NATO, the European Union, and Western nations demonstrated remarkable unity in supporting Ukraine, ensuring it could defend itself without direct Western military intervention.

While Hungary and Slovakia occasionally expressed reservations, there was broad consensus that Putin’s invasion needed to fail to prevent Russia from further aggression, possibly against NATO members like Estonia. The prevailing belief was that Ukraine should receive whatever it needed to achieve a strong negotiating position for lasting peace.

U.S. Shifts Policy on Ukraine

However, that unity has begun to fray. Former President Donald Trump has significantly undermined Ukraine’s stance by declaring—through his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “not realistic.” Additionally, the U.S. has dismissed Kyiv’s aspirations for NATO membership, a key goal for President Zelensky, and ruled out sending troops to defend Ukraine from potential future Russian invasions.

Further rattling Western allies, Trump recently held a cordial 90-minute phone call with Putin, abruptly ending a three-year diplomatic freeze. This shift in U.S. policy suggests a preference for quickly ending the war, even if it means meeting many of Moscow’s demands.

Over the coming days in Munich, Trump’s team is expected to outline their plans for Ukraine, with retired U.S. Army General Keith Kellogg traveling to Kyiv next week for further discussions. However, a clear rift has emerged between Washington and Europe. While the U.S. prioritizes ending the war swiftly, European leaders had, until recently, believed that sustained pressure on Moscow—amid significant Russian battlefield casualties and economic struggles—could secure a more favorable peace for Ukraine.

NATO’s Growing Divisions

Beyond Ukraine, other cracks are emerging within NATO. Trump’s recent announcement of his interest in “buying” Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark—has sparked fresh tensions. When Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen firmly stated that “Greenland is not for sale,” Trump reportedly reacted with a “horrendous” phone call and did not rule out using force to take the territory.

The notion of a NATO country threatening to seize another member’s land was once unthinkable. In Greenland’s case, U.S. security interests are already well-served, as the island hosts more American troops than Danish forces, and Copenhagen has been open to strengthening mutual defense arrangements.

While many in Scandinavia hope Trump’s proposal is mere rhetoric, the broader damage is already done. His remarks signal a troubling precedent—that using force against neighbors for territorial gain is acceptable.

Former UK National Security Adviser and Ambassador to Washington, Lord Kim Darroch, warned that Trump’s threats against Denmark—whether economic or military—send a dangerous message. “Even if nothing comes from it, it’s done great damage. It’s another signal of Trump’s disdain for NATO. And it will be interpreted in Moscow and Beijing as a message that they have a free hand in Ukraine and Taiwan respectively,” he said.

At the Munich Security Conference, European allies will seek reassurance from Washington that NATO remains strong. However, Trump appears determined to reshape America’s global role and seems unlikely to heed European concerns.

Modi and Trump Discuss Trade, Tariffs, and Strategic Partnerships

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump convened at the White House to deliberate on trade and other bilateral matters.

During their meeting, Trump disclosed an agreement for India to increase imports of American oil and gas, a move intended to help reduce the trade deficit between the two nations.

This discussion followed Trump’s recent announcement of a new reciprocal tariff policy. The US president remarked that “our allies are worse than our enemies” regarding import duties, emphasizing his administration’s stance on trade imbalances.

The reciprocal tariffs, which will be applicable to all US trading partners, are the latest in a series of trade measures introduced by the Trump administration. However, a definitive implementation date has yet to be established. Trump has previously used tariff threats as a negotiation strategy.

Trade and Tariffs Take Center Stage

Donald Trump has often referred to tariffs as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” and today was no exception.

Before sitting down with Modi, Trump spent nearly an hour addressing the media about his “reciprocal tariffs” strategy. Details remain scarce, but the approach seems to involve imposing tariffs on countries based on the trade restrictions they impose on US goods.

The meeting between Modi and Trump largely focused on this issue. “Whatever India charges, we charge them,” Trump told a room packed with reporters awaiting an update on their bilateral discussions.

Apart from tariff talks, the two leaders worked on strengthening trade relations. Modi highlighted India’s interest in securing its energy needs through increased trade in oil and gas with the US. Meanwhile, Trump confirmed that military sales to India would also be expanded.

Concerns Over Immigration Policies

Trump’s return to the White House has rekindled anxiety among Indian professionals working in the US, particularly those on H-1B visas.

During his first term, Trump tightened restrictions on the H-1B visa program, significantly increasing rejection rates from 5-8% under President Obama to 24% in 2018. Although it remains uncertain whether such policies will be reinstated, many Indian workers fear renewed challenges.

While some industry leaders, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, have expressed support for the H-1B system, Trump’s administration remains divided on immigration policy.

Indians, who account for 72% of all H-1B visas issued, are especially vulnerable. Their concerns extend beyond visa restrictions to potential hostility toward Indian immigrants.

One of the most pressing issues is Trump’s attempt to deny automatic US citizenship to children born to temporary foreign workers. Although blocked by federal courts, the policy could be revived through higher judicial rulings.

A shift in birthright citizenship laws would disproportionately impact the Indian community. With over five million Indians in the US holding non-immigrant visas, many expectant parents are anxiously seeking clarity on their children’s legal status.

From ‘Namaste Trump!’ to ‘Howdy, Modi!’

Trump and Modi have shared a warm diplomatic relationship. In 2020, Modi hosted Trump in India with a grand rally at the world’s largest cricket stadium in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The event, called “Namaste Trump!,” featured music and dance performances, drawing tens of thousands of attendees.

During his address, Modi lauded Trump’s leadership, stating, “Trump thinks big and the world knows what he has done to realise the American dream.”

This visit followed the “Howdy, Modi!” event in 2019, where Modi and Trump addressed 50,000 members of the Indian diaspora at a Houston football stadium. The two leaders exchanged smiles and hugs while making strong proclamations about their growing partnership.

However, analysts suggest that these events, while grand spectacles, are also strategic diplomatic moves aimed at solidifying ties between the two nations.

Shifts Since the ‘Howdy, Modi!’ Event

Much has changed since Modi’s 2019 visit to Houston, where he and Trump were the center of a large-scale community event.

At the time, Trump described the gathering as a “profoundly historic event,” possibly the largest reception of a foreign leader in US history. For Modi, the event was a platform to showcase India’s growing global influence and his popularity among the Indian diaspora.

Five years later, their relationship remains strong, but the US-India dynamic has grown more complex.

Modi, though still a popular leader, has faced political challenges at home, failing to secure an outright majority in last year’s elections. India’s economy has slowed, prompting foreign investors to withdraw capital.

Tensions over trade and H-1B visa policies persist, and diplomatic relations were tested last year after an alleged plot by an Indian agent to assassinate a Sikh separatist in the US.

However, India’s role as a strategic counterbalance to China remains a crucial element of US foreign policy.

Modi’s Agenda in Washington

Modi’s visit comes at a delicate moment, as his “Make in India” initiative faces challenges from Trump’s “America First” policy.

Unlike their 2017 meeting in Washington, which was marked by camaraderie, this visit is overshadowed by global trade disputes and Trump’s emphasis on tariffs. The White House has already announced plans for new reciprocal tariffs on Indian imports.

Modi’s primary goal is to mitigate the impact of these tariffs while ensuring that India remains an indispensable US ally.

He stated that he is open to lowering tariffs on American goods, repatriating undocumented Indian nationals, and increasing US imports of American oil to help balance trade.

Beyond trade, Modi aims to enhance cooperation in technology, defense, and energy, emphasizing common strategic interests.

Politically, he is using the visit to reaffirm India’s status as a key US partner in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in countering China’s growing influence.

While Trump’s voter base views India as an economic competitor, the personal rapport between the two leaders may help ease tensions.

The Strategic Importance of US-India Relations

Modi is among the first foreign leaders to visit Trump in his second presidential term, underscoring the significance of US-India relations.

Both nations share deep concerns over China’s ambitions and are part of the Quad alliance, aimed at countering Beijing’s influence in the Asia-Pacific.

Trade ties between the two countries are also substantial. The US is India’s second-largest trading partner, while India serves as a major market for American multinational corporations.

In recent years, companies like Taiwan’s Foxconn—an Apple supplier—have been shifting production to India as part of a broader move away from reliance on China.

The two countries also maintain strong people-to-people ties, driven by the large Indian diaspora in the US. However, illegal migration from India has become a growing concern for Washington.

Earlier this month, a US military aircraft deported a group of shackled Indian migrants back to India. Their treatment sparked outrage among India’s opposition leaders, adding another layer of diplomatic tension to an already complex relationship.

Modi’s U.S. Visit to Test His Relationship with Trump Amid Tariff Concerns

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s established camaraderie with President Donald Trump faces a significant test as he begins his visit to Washington on Wednesday. Modi is keen to ensure India avoids tariffs that have been imposed on other nations and to mitigate the risk of additional taxes on Indian imports.

India, recognized as a crucial strategic ally of the United States, has not yet been subjected to any new tariffs. The two leaders have nurtured a personal bond, with Modi—often criticized for India’s democratic decline—welcoming Trump’s return to the White House. Modi aims to recalibrate India’s relationship with the West, especially in light of his refusal to denounce Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

Despite this relationship, Trump has frequently labeled India as a “tariff king” and pushed for the South Asian nation to facilitate the deportation of migrants. In response, India has shown openness to lowering tariffs on American goods, accepting the return of Indian citizens, and increasing its purchase of U.S. oil.

However, with tariff threats still looming, the crucial question remains: How much does personal rapport between the two leaders matter, and how far is India willing to go to reach a trade agreement?

Scrutiny on Body Language

During Trump’s first term, Modi built a strong working relationship with the U.S. president. The two leaders can capitalize on areas of alignment and “minimize areas of friction without conceding on core areas of national interest,” stated Meera Shankar, India’s former ambassador to the U.S.

“Most other partners have their reciprocal lists ready from the word go, because it’s a point of leverage when you negotiate,” Shankar explained, expressing optimism that India “will find the right balance between firmness and flexibility” when dealing with tariffs.

Modi, strengthened by his Hindu nationalist party’s victory in last weekend’s crucial state legislature election in India’s federal territory, including New Delhi, described the visit as an “opportunity to build upon” past collaboration and “deepen our partnership” in sectors such as technology, trade, defense, and energy.

Trump’s Expectations

During a conversation with Modi in January, Trump underscored the need for India to increase purchases of U.S.-made military equipment and weapons, as well as reduce the trade deficit. In 2023, the United States imported $50 billion more in goods from India than it exported.

According to a White House readout at the time, Trump “emphasized the importance of India increasing its procurement of American-made security equipment and moving toward a fair bilateral trading relationship.”

Earlier this month, India complied with a U.S. request to accept the return of 104 migrants on a military plane, marking the first such repatriation flight under a crackdown ordered by the Trump administration.

Additionally, Modi’s government has lowered certain high tariffs, including reducing duties on some Harley-Davidson motorcycles from 50% to 40%. In 2023, India also lifted retaliatory tariffs on American almonds, apples, chickpeas, lentils, and walnuts.

“Another thing we can expect is that Modi would offer to purchase more American (natural) gas to narrow the U.S. trade deficit,” said Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific security program at the Washington-based Center for a New American Security. “This will help a little bit.”

Concerns Regarding China

India plays a pivotal role in the U.S. strategy to counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific region. Later this year, it is set to host a summit of the Quad alliance, which includes the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia.

However, India might have to reassess its position if Trump’s administration pursues a diplomatic thaw with China.

“Trump’s outreach to China will complicate India’s ability to cultivate the American desire to use India as a proxy against China without actually ever becoming one,” noted Happymon Jacob, founder of the New Delhi-based Council for Strategic and Defense Research.

India recently took steps to improve ties with China. In December, both countries agreed to work toward resolving their longstanding border dispute in the Himalayas, which had led to a deadly military clash in 2020.

“Even a tactical accommodation between the U.S. and China has implications for India,” Shankar remarked.

Potential Defense Agreements

The United States remains India’s largest trading partner, with a trade imbalance of $50 billion in favor of India. The total Indo-U.S. trade in goods and services reached approximately $190.1 billion in 2023. According to India’s External Affairs Ministry, U.S. exports to India were valued at nearly $70 billion, while Indian exports to the U.S. stood at $120 billion.

India remains heavily reliant on Russia for military supplies, with about 60% of its defense equipment sourced from Moscow. However, uncertainties surrounding the Ukraine war have pushed New Delhi to explore alternative suppliers, including the U.S., Israel, and Britain.

A recent deal will enable U.S.-based General Electric to collaborate with Hindustan Aeronautics in manufacturing jet engines for Indian fighter aircraft. Additionally, India has agreed to purchase U.S.-made MQ-9B SeaGuardian armed drones.

Since 2008, India has signed contracts for over $20 billion worth of American defense equipment.

“For India, that could also be an area where we see some synergies with the U.S.,” Shankar stated, adding that Trump is expected to encourage further defense procurements by India.

Raja Mohan, an analyst at the Institute of South Asian Studies in Singapore, views Modi’s visit as a crucial moment to advance Indo-U.S. ties.

“India’s diplomatic skills will be tested, so the general goodwill that exists between Trump and Modi should be translated into concrete outcomes,” Mohan emphasized.

Pope Francis Condemns U.S. Deportation Plans, Warns of Consequences

Pope Francis issued a strong criticism on Tuesday regarding the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans, cautioning that expelling individuals solely based on their illegal status strips them of their dignity and will have dire consequences.

In an unprecedented move, Francis directly addressed the U.S. crackdown on migrants through a letter to American bishops, appearing to challenge Vice President JD Vance’s theological defense of the deportation strategy.

U.S. border czar Tom Homan promptly dismissed the pope’s comments, pointing out that the Vatican is a city-state enclosed by walls and arguing that border security should remain under his jurisdiction.

As the first Latin American pontiff, Francis has long prioritized the rights and welfare of migrants, frequently citing biblical teachings that emphasize welcoming strangers. He has called on nations to provide protection, integration, and support to those fleeing violence, poverty, and environmental crises, though he acknowledges that governments must operate within their means.

Tensions between the Argentine Jesuit and President Donald Trump on immigration matters date back to Trump’s first campaign. In 2016, Francis famously declared that anyone who builds walls to keep migrants out was “not a Christian.”

In his letter, Francis acknowledged the right of countries to ensure security and safeguard their communities from criminal threats.

“That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness,” he wrote.

Referencing the Book of Exodus and Jesus Christ’s own experiences, Francis defended the right of people to seek safety in other countries. He described the deportation plan as a “major crisis” unfolding in the United States.

He urged Christians to critically assess policies that conflate undocumented status with criminal behavior.

“Anyone schooled in Christianity cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality,” he said.

Francis further warned that policies rooted in force rather than fundamental human dignity are doomed to fail.

“What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly,” he cautioned.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed gratitude for the pope’s message in his response.

“With you, we pray that the U.S. government keep its prior commitments to help those in desperate need,” Broglio wrote. “Boldly I ask for your continued prayers so that we may find the courage as a nation to build a more humane system of immigration, one that protects our communities while safeguarding the dignity of all.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reported last week that over 8,000 people had been arrested in immigration raids since Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Some individuals have already been deported, while others remain in federal custody, including at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

Vance, a Catholic convert, has defended the administration’s hardline immigration approach by invoking the medieval Catholic concept of “ordo amoris,” which describes a hierarchy of love—placing family first, followed by neighbors, local communities, and then the broader world.

Francis appeared to challenge Vance’s interpretation in his letter.

“Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups,” he wrote. “The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan,’ that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

David Gibson, director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture, remarked on social media that Francis’ letter directly countered Vance’s theological claims.

“[It] takes aim at every single absurd theological claim by JD Vance and his allies in conservative Catholicism (and the Catholic electorate),” Gibson posted.

Vance’s argument had gained traction among conservative Catholics, including the Catholic League, which backed his interpretation of the hierarchy of Christian love.

In Crisis Magazine, editor Eric Sammons defended Vance’s stance, citing the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

“For Augustine, every love, even the love of neighbor, must be ordered beneath the love of God,” Sammons wrote. “This hierarchy extends to our human relationships where love for family, community, and nation should precede our love for the world at large, not in intensity but in priority of duty and responsibility.”

Homan, also a Catholic, dismissed the pope’s stance and argued that Francis should focus on Church affairs rather than U.S. border policy.

“He wants to attack us for securing our border. He’s got a wall around the Vatican, does he not?” Homan told reporters in a video posted by The Hill. “So he’s got a wall around that protects his people and himself, but we can’t have a wall around the United States.”

The Vatican, a 44-hectare (108-acre) walled city-state within Rome, has also implemented strict border measures. A law enacted in December imposes prison sentences of up to four years and fines of up to 25,000 euros ($25,873) on those who enter illegally using force, threats, or deception to bypass security.

The U.S. bishops conference had previously criticized Trump’s immigration policies, calling them “deeply troubling” in an unusually strong statement. The bishops warned that measures concerning immigration, foreign aid, capital punishment, and environmental policies would have harmful consequences, especially for vulnerable populations.

This marked a notable rebuke from the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S., which has traditionally prioritized opposition to abortion as a central political concern. Many bishops had previously supported the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision—enabled by Trump-appointed justices—to overturn constitutional protections for abortion.

Despite tensions between the Church and Trump’s policies, Catholic voters helped secure his victory in the 2024 election, giving him 54% of their votes—a notable increase from the 50% he received in 2020 when he ran against President Joe Biden, a fellow Catholic.

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who leads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ migration committee, welcomed the pope’s letter as an important source of support in a challenging climate.

“We are dealing with these very threatening circumstances towards immigrants, towards our immigrant brothers and sisters, and also towards those who assist them in any way,” Seitz stated.

Speaking to The Associated Press, Seitz emphasized that while it’s important to acknowledge the concerns of Americans, including Catholic Trump supporters, regarding immigration, Church leaders must continue to uphold its teachings.

“But we have to just steadfastly announce the truth as best we understand it, both in terms of the teaching of the church and the reality on the ground,” he added.

Trump Meets Jordan’s King Abdullah, Reiterates Plan to Clear Gaza for Redevelopment

President Donald Trump welcomed Jordan’s King Abdullah II to the White House on Tuesday, once again pushing his controversial idea of evacuating Gaza’s population, placing it under U.S. control, and transforming it into a tourist destination.

This ambitious but highly improbable proposal to reshape the Middle East would require Jordan and other Arab nations to take in displaced Gazans. However, after their meeting, Abdullah reaffirmed his opposition to such a move.

Their discussion took place in the Oval Office, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio also present. Although Trump had previously suggested withholding U.S. aid from Jordan or Egypt if they refused to accept more people from Gaza, he appeared to backtrack on that stance.

“I don’t have to threaten that. I do believe we’re above that,” Trump stated. This contradicted his earlier remarks, where he had implied that reducing U.S. assistance was a possibility.

When asked multiple times about Trump’s plan to empty Gaza and convert it into a Mediterranean resort, Abdullah refrained from making any concrete remarks or committing to taking in large numbers of displaced Gazans.

However, the Jordanian leader did express his country’s willingness to accept up to 2,000 ill or cancer-stricken children from Gaza “right away.”

“I finally see somebody that can take us across the finish line to bring stability, peace and prosperity to all of us in the region,” Abdullah remarked, referring to Trump during their meeting.

After spending about two hours at the White House, Abdullah proceeded to Capitol Hill for discussions with a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Later, he posted on X, stating, “I reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

“This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all,” he wrote.

Despite Abdullah’s firm stance, Trump used the meeting to once again suggest that the U.S. could assume control of Gaza. He claimed this wouldn’t require American financial contributions but insisted that placing the region under “U.S. authority” was feasible, though he did not elaborate on what that would entail.

“We’re not going to buy anything. We’re going to have it,” Trump said regarding U.S. control in Gaza. He envisioned constructing new hotels, office buildings, and residences, promising that the region would be “exciting.”

“I can tell you about real estate. They’re going to be in love with it,” Trump added, referencing his background in property development, while also maintaining that he had no personal interest in handling the redevelopment.

Trump has previously suggested that Gaza’s population could be relocated, either temporarily or permanently—an idea that has been met with strong opposition across the Arab world.

The former president also reiterated that a fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel could be scrapped if Hamas failed to release all remaining hostages by midday Saturday. He first raised this point on Monday but acknowledged that Israel would ultimately decide on the matter.

“I don’t think they’re going to make the deadline, personally,” Trump commented on Tuesday, referring to Hamas. “They want to play tough guy. We’ll see how tough they are.”

Abdullah’s visit coincided with a critical period for the ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas has accused Israel of breaching the truce and has delayed the release of more hostages captured during its attack on October 7, 2023.

Following Trump’s remarks, Hamas issued a statement calling them “racist” and “a call for ethnic cleansing.” The group also accused the former president of attempting to “liquidate the Palestinian cause and deny the national rights of the Palestinian people.”

Trump has repeatedly proposed that the U.S. should control Gaza and transform it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” His vision includes relocating Palestinians to neighboring nations without granting them a right of return.

However, his statements on Tuesday contradicted his previous stance on potentially withholding U.S. aid from Jordan and Egypt—two long-standing American allies and top recipients of foreign assistance—if they refused to accept additional Palestinians from Gaza.

Jordan already hosts over 2 million Palestinians, and its government has remained resolute in opposing forced displacement. Last week, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi stated that his country’s stance on Gaza’s population transfer was “firm and unwavering.”

Beyond concerns over jeopardizing the longstanding objective of a two-state solution, both Egypt and Jordan have expressed private security fears about admitting large numbers of displaced Palestinians, even on a temporary basis.

Trump first outlined his plans for relocating Gaza’s residents and asserting U.S. control over the region during a press conference last week alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At the time, the former president did not rule out deploying American troops to help secure Gaza but simultaneously insisted that no U.S. funds would be allocated for its reconstruction—raising significant questions about how his proposal could be implemented.

Following Trump’s initial remarks, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to clarify that his administration envisioned only a “temporary” relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. They claimed the move would allow for essential tasks such as clearing debris, disposing of unexploded ordnance, and reconstructing the region.

However, when asked in a Fox News interview on Monday whether displaced Palestinians would eventually be permitted to return to Gaza, Trump firmly responded, “No, they wouldn’t.”

Donald Trump Calls for End to Israel-Hamas Ceasefire if Hostages Are Not Released

Former U.S. President Donald Trump stated on Monday that the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas should be terminated if Hamas does not release all remaining hostages in Gaza by noon on Saturday. However, he clarified that the ultimate decision rested with Israel.

Trump’s remarks followed Hamas’ announcement that it would delay further hostage releases, accusing Israel of breaching the three-week-old ceasefire. In response, Trump argued that following the release of three visibly frail hostages on Saturday, Israel should demand the release of all captives by midday Saturday or resume military operations.

“If they’re not here, all hell is going to break out,” Trump warned. He further emphasized, “Cancel it, and all bets are off.”

Despite his strong stance, Trump acknowledged that Israel had the final say. “I’m speaking for myself. Israel can override it,” he said. When asked if the U.S. would respond militarily if hostages were not released, he cryptically stated, “Hamas will find out what I mean.”

Trump’s comments also coincided with statements he made in an interview with Fox News, where he argued that Palestinians in Gaza would not have a right to return under his vision for U.S. “ownership” of the region. His remarks contradicted statements from other officials in his administration, who had described his proposal as a temporary measure to relocate Gaza’s population.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Trump was asked whether Palestinians in Gaza would be allowed to return to their homes. “No, they wouldn’t,” he replied. This stance aligned with his increasing pressure on Arab nations, particularly Jordan and Egypt, to take in Palestinian refugees, even though Palestinians consider Gaza part of their future homeland.

“We’ll build safe communities, a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is,” Trump stated. “In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. No big money spent.”

His proposal has faced strong opposition from Arab nations. Trump is set to meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the White House on Tuesday. Concerns have been raised that his plan could jeopardize the long-standing two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Egypt and Jordan have also expressed security concerns about hosting large numbers of refugees, even on a temporary basis.

When asked about persuading King Abdullah to accept Palestinian refugees, Trump said, “I do think he’ll take, and I think other countries will take also. They have good hearts.”

However, he hinted that he might withhold U.S. aid to Jordan and Egypt if they refused. “Yeah, maybe, sure why not,” Trump remarked. “If they don’t, I would conceivably withhold aid, yes.”

Trump’s statements could put further strain on the delicate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which has lasted for 15 months. The ongoing negotiations depend on significant humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for civilians in Gaza.

Following Trump’s remarks last week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to clarify his position. They asserted that Trump only intended for the relocation of Palestinians to be “temporary” to facilitate clearing debris, removing unexploded ordnance, and rebuilding infrastructure.

Trump also expressed concern over the well-being of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. He suggested that those already released were in relatively better health, while the remaining captives were in critical condition or possibly deceased. “Based on what I saw over the past two days, they’re not going to be alive for long,” he stated.

The parents of slain American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Rachel and Jon Goldberg-Polin, urged Trump and his negotiating team to act quickly. In a video message released on Saturday, they called for the immediate release of all remaining hostages.

“All 76 hostages out this week,” they demanded. “End of war. Who benefits from dragging it out for so long? Not the people of this region. Let’s get it done right now.”

Trump has not ruled out deploying U.S. troops to help stabilize Gaza, but he has insisted that no American funds would be used for its reconstruction. This stance has raised key questions about the feasibility of his proposal.

On Monday, Egypt reiterated its opposition to relocating Palestinians from Gaza and the occupied West Bank, warning that such a move could destabilize the region.

A statement from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry reaffirmed the country’s support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. It stated that this was the foundation for a “comprehensive and just peace” in the region.

Egypt also rejected any measures that could violate Palestinians’ right to self-determination and independence. The statement underscored the right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 war, when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced to leave their homes in what is now Israel.

A senior Hamas official dismissed Trump’s remarks about U.S. “ownership” of Gaza, calling them “absurd.”

Izzat al-Rishq, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, criticized Trump’s statements, arguing that they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the region.

“These comments reflect a deep ignorance of Palestine and the region,” al-Rishq said in remarks released early Monday.

He further predicted that Trump’s approach to the Palestinian issue would not succeed. “Dealing with the Palestinian cause with the mentality of a real estate dealer is a recipe for failure,” he stated. “Our Palestinian people will thwart all transfer and deportation plans.”

PM Modi Engages Global Industry Leaders at WAVES Summit to Boost India’s Entertainment Sector

Prime Minister Narendra Modi engaged in virtual discussions with prominent Indian and international figures who serve on the WAVES Summit Advisory Board. The meeting included industry leaders such as Mukesh Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Industries, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, Anand Mahindra, Chairperson of Mahindra & Mahindra, Ted Sarandos, Co-CEO of Netflix, and renowned television and film producer Ekta R. Kapoor.

The WAVES Summit has attracted widespread attention, with its primary goal being to elevate India’s stature in global content creation. As the country continues to make significant strides in the entertainment sector, the summit is seen as a major initiative in strengthening India’s influence in the global creative economy.

Following the meeting, PM Modi shared his thoughts on X (formerly Twitter), stating, “Just concluded an extensive meeting of the Advisory Board of WAVES, the global summit that brings together the world of entertainment, creativity, and culture. The members of the Advisory Board are eminent individuals from different walks of life, who not only reiterated their support but also shared valuable inputs on how to further enhance our efforts to make India a global entertainment hub.”

The Prime Minister highlighted the expanding impact of India’s television shows and broader entertainment industry, emphasizing their contribution to both the nation’s economic growth and its increasing cultural significance on the world stage. His initiative has received strong backing from leading Bollywood actors such as Shah Rukh Khan and Akshay Kumar, who believe that WAVES has the potential to position India at the forefront of global content creation.

The WAVES Summit was first introduced by PM Modi in December 2024 as a key initiative aimed at establishing India as a major player in the international entertainment landscape.

During his address on his ‘Mann Ki Baat’ radio show, PM Modi urged young creators in the entertainment sector to participate in the event. He underscored the summit’s importance in reflecting India’s growing global presence in the creative industry.

“In the years ahead, as India works towards becoming a five-trillion-dollar economy, the creator economy is bringing new energy and momentum. I encourage all of India’s entertainment professionals — whether young or established, from Bollywood or regional cinema, TV industry professionals, or those in animation, gaming, or entertainment technology — to join the WAVES Summit,” said PM Modi.

WAVES is more than just a summit. A major highlight of the event is the inaugural International Animation Filmmakers Competition (AFC), which was launched on September 8, 2024. This competition provides a global platform for creators specializing in animation, VFX, AR-VR, and virtual production. It is considered a groundbreaking effort to showcase India’s growing capabilities in the creative sector.

U.S. and India at a Crossroads: Can They Build a Stronger Future Together?

The United States faces a critical decision—will it continue to lead in an evolving global economy, or will outdated policies drive away top talent? Nowhere is this challenge more pressing than in its partnership with India.

For years, Indian professionals have played a crucial role in driving U.S. innovation. Many have utilized the H-1B visa program, which allows American employers to hire “highly skilled” foreign workers on a temporary basis. Others have arrived as students, some returning to India after their studies, while others have settled permanently, contributing to the U.S. economy as citizens.

Currently, over 330,000 Indian students are enrolled in U.S. universities, and Indian professionals accounted for 72.3% of all H-1B visas issued in FY 2023. In the 2023-2024 academic year, India overtook China as the top source of international students in the U.S., reclaiming a position it last held in 2009, according to the latest Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.

With Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi securing reelection in June 2024—albeit as the leader of a coalition—the stage is set for deeper U.S.-India relations. However, this comes amid internal U.S. debates over the H-1B visa program and the broader significance of immigration to American businesses.

Next week, Modi is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House. As both countries emphasize economic self-reliance—through the “Made in the USA” and “Make in India” initiatives—the key issue is not whether they can coexist, but rather how they can collaborate for a stronger, interconnected future.

“This is such an important relationship, and it’s such a great opportunity for people-to-people, company-to-company, and government-to-government to make a difference in the world,” stated former U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti on the Heard in the Corridor Podcast, recorded at a Milken Institute summit in Abu Dhabi.

Rather than a competition, the U.S.-India relationship presents an advantage. Both nations lead in technology, education, and economic growth, and their partnership is essential for shaping the future. Garcetti described this collaboration as “an awakening” for Americans, recognizing India’s cultural and economic importance.

Kenneth I. Juster, Garcetti’s predecessor, echoed this sentiment in an interview with ABP Live, asserting that despite occasional “speed bumps” involving trade, tariffs, and immigration, Trump would ensure that U.S.-India relations remain “very strong.”

Can ‘Made in America’ and ‘Make in India’ Work Together?

With both countries prioritizing domestic economic growth, can the “Made in America” and “Make in India” strategies succeed in parallel? The answer lies in sound policy decisions, investment cooperation, and a mutual commitment to innovation that benefits both nations.

The potential rewards include more resilient supply chains, job creation, and access to expanding markets. India has significantly increased its foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States, reflecting its growing economic stature. As the world’s fastest-growing major economy, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion, India is now the fifth-largest economy, boasting a GDP of $3.4 trillion. According to the U.S. State Department’s “2024 Investment Climate Statements: India” report, India is expected to surpass Japan and Germany by the early 2030s, securing its place as the world’s third-largest economy.

Indian companies investing in the U.S. are not merely expanding their business footprint; they are actively integrating into local communities. The reverse is also true, with American investments in India playing a similar role. This is not just about corporate social responsibility—it is about building lasting economic and strategic relationships.

However, if the U.S. fails to modernize its immigration and trade policies, top Indian talent that could otherwise contribute to the American economy may choose alternative destinations like Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom.

Likewise, if India adopts overly protectionist policies, it may discourage crucial U.S. investments that drive innovation and economic expansion. Both countries have exhibited signs of protectionism under various administrations, particularly in sectors like manufacturing and technology. The bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which aims to boost domestic U.S. semiconductor production, along with tighter restrictions on foreign investments, highlight America’s increasing economic nationalism. The challenge is to balance these policies to safeguard economic and national security while fostering a mutually beneficial partnership.

Strengthening the U.S.-India Relationship

To maintain and enhance their partnership, the U.S. and India must take decisive action. The United States must reform its immigration policies to attract and retain top talent, while also crafting investment-friendly policies that encourage cross-border collaboration. Simultaneously, India should continue welcoming foreign investment and fostering knowledge exchange.

Deepening people-to-people ties between the two nations is equally vital. The relationship is not just about government agreements—it thrives on strong connections between the people of both countries.

Garcetti emphasized this, stating, “We already have more Indian students in our higher education institutions than from any other country. This exchange enriches both nations, and we need more Americans to study in India to create a two-way knowledge flow.”

As China makes significant strides in artificial intelligence, the United States must recognize the importance of engaging with India to ensure it does not miss out on opportunities in one of the world’s fastest-growing innovation hubs.

Trump recently pointed to the rapid rise of the Chinese AI app DeepSeek as a “wake-up call” for American technology firms. Meanwhile, India is emerging as a global leader in AI, digital technology, and advanced manufacturing. If the U.S. fails to collaborate effectively, it risks losing a key ally in technological innovation.

“India is moving to the center stage of innovation—where design, engineering, and cutting-edge technology are taking over,” Garcetti remarked. “It’s a testbed for AI applications across industries and languages.”

The Role of Investment and Collaboration

Foreign direct investment between the two nations is no longer a one-way flow. Indian companies are making a tangible impact on the U.S. economy. A prime example is JSW Steel’s investment in Texas, aimed at enhancing steel production and creating jobs.

Garcetti highlighted this, noting, “JSW’s investment is a prime example of how cross-border collaboration works for everyone—strengthening economies while advancing clean energy goals.”

The U.S.-India partnership is about more than trade. It represents a shared vision for the future, built on common values and global leadership.

“If you want your life or your business to be about something consequential, come to India,” Garcetti said. “If you want it to be compelling, come to India. And if you want to navigate the challenges of today’s world, the U.S.-India partnership is the place to start.”

Two decades ago, the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, which claimed over 200,000 lives, prompted a new era of international cooperation. The “Quad”—comprising the United States, India, Australia, and Japan—was formed in response, showcasing the strength of diplomatic and strategic alliances. However, like any partnership, its success hinges on the commitment of its members.

For Trump, Modi, and the citizens of both nations, the opportunity at hand is immense.

Now is the time for decisive action. The United States and India must reinforce their partnership through investment, policy reforms, and technological cooperation. The future will not be shaped by those who withdraw, but by those who seize the opportunity to innovate together.

-+=