With Russian and Ukrainian forces seemingly locked in stalemate on the ground, the war has increasingly become an aerial one with both sides turning to drones and “smart” missiles to try to gain an advantage.

What does that look like?

Over the past four years Ukraine has pioneered the use of both offensive and defensive drones. They have changed the face of war and helped narrow the advantage enjoyed by Russia when it comes to weapons and personnel.

These unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, “hit Russian targets every day” and have played “a huge role in Ukraine’s recent improvement in fortunes, together with other innovations in the country’s drone war”, said the Financial Times.

At the same time, Ukraine has built an “increasingly sophisticated, layered air defence system”, said the BBC’s defence correspondent Jonathan Beale. Kyiv is now able to successfully intercept the vast majority of Russian long-range drones and missiles before they can hit their targets. “Embracing innovation and technology is giving Ukraine an advantage”, with “software that tracks every glide bomb, missile and drone launched by Russia” being “at the heart” of its air defences.

While the “intensity” of air attacks “continues to increase”, Russian military expert Nikolai Mitrokhine told Le Monde, both sides are using different tactics. Russia carries out occasional but massive strikes to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences. It “sometimes fires nearly 1,000 drones a day – as was the case on 24 March – while Ukraine launches almost nightly attacks, between 250 and 400 drones”.

What weapons do they have?

Ukraine has been producing long- and medium-range FP-1 and FP-2 drones – known as “Drakosha” or “little dragons” – at scale and at speed at a cost of about €50,000 each. It has been “pouring resources” into “middle strikes” that target Russian air defences and military logistics as far as 180km (112 miles) behind the front line, said Reuters. These strikes cannot “turn the tide against Russia” alone, but are “having an additional impact by facilitating longer-range drone strikes that are damaging Russian oil infrastructure”.

And while Ukraine still relies on expensive US-made Patriot missiles to take down Russian ballistic missiles, cheap interceptor drones, such as the P1-SUN, are proving most effective in defending Ukraine’s cities from aerial attack. They are 3D-printed and cost just $1,000 (£750); more than 1,000 are produced every day by Ukraine.

They can, however, do little to stop Russian glide bombs. These are Soviet-era munitions fitted with cheap guidance kits that turn so-called “dumb” bombs into precision weapons. They can be launched from well inside Russian airspace and there is no reliable way to stop them. “For three years, they have been one of the most destructive weapons” used by Kremlin forces to level entire city blocks from Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia to Kherson, said The Telegraph.

Ukraine hit back last week, unveiling its first domestically produced glide bomb, named the Vyrivniuvach, or “Equaliser”.

How might this change the war?

The Equaliser is “one of the most significant additions to Ukraine’s home-grown arsenal since the war began”. It “could potentially accelerate the pace at which Russian forces are pushed back”, said Keir Giles, from the Chatham House think tank.

More generally, Ukraine’s long-range capabilities are “significantly changing the situation and, more broadly, the world’s perception of Russia’s war,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last month.

“Fast-improving” Ukrainian drone capabilities are “hurting the invaders’ logistics behind the battlefield, and pounding oil infrastructure and military targets deeper inside Russia,” said The Wall Street Journal. “Having gained a tactical and technological edge” in the air, this summer will test whether Ukraine “can turn that slender advantage into a strategic turning point”.

The war in Ukraine is unwinnable and could bring down the Russian economy. That’s the emerging assessment among Russia’s power brokers, as Vladimir Putin faces mounting challenges on the battlefield and at home.

Kremlin propagandists may still be “projecting confidence about the outcome of the war”, said Igor Gretskiy, of the Estonian-based International Centre for Defence and Security, but there’s been “a marked shift in mood” among Russia’s political and business elites. It’s no longer their “default assumption” that Russia will achieve its objectives.

What did the commentators say?

Setbacks have been mounting on several fronts, said Gretskiy. “First, the cracks in the Russian economy became impossible to ignore”, with the federal budget “deeply out of balance” and the deficit at the end of April nearly double what was planned for the whole of 2026.

“In the most serious sign of internal division” since Russia invaded Ukraine four years ago, senior Russian government officials have warned Putin that spending on the war “is on an unaffordable path”, said Bloomberg.

Then there is the military situation itself. Ukrainian drone attacks are causing severe disruption to Russia’s logistical networks and supply lines to the front, and long-range strikes have hit Russian oil-production infrastructure and even threatened Moscow. The Russian army is no longer able to grind out incremental capture of Ukrainian territory, and one million of its soldiers are thought to have been killed or wounded since hostilities began.

We’re in a situation where “the capabilities of both sides are comparable”, said Russian political scientist Vasily Kashin on Russia in Global Affairs. “Historically, such wars have only extremely rarely resulted in the complete destruction of one side.” Russia can have no hope “of annexing new large Ukrainian territories” when “it lacks the capacity to sustainably control and manage” them, and its goal of eliminating the Kyiv regime is “fundamentally unattainable at this stage”. The publication of such a damning analysis is “a further sign of growing dissent at the top of Russia’s political establishment”, said Catherine Belton, Russia reporter for The Washington Post.

“Sustaining the war machine” is also “eroding” the president’s “social base”, said anti-Putin activist Alexey Sakhnin in Jacobin. A recent poll by Moscow’s independent Levada Center suggests that 62% of Russians favour peace talks with Ukraine, with only 27% expressing support for continuing the war.

What next?

There are parliamentary elections in September, so the Kremlin will want to ensure that “increasingly evident war fatigue” doesn’t “affect the cohesion” of Putin’s system”, said exiled Russian politician Vladimir Kara-Murza in The Washington Post last week.

But if events continue to turn against him, Putin may feel he has not choice but to roll the dice and go for broke, Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Foundation told The Post’s Belton: “To a great degree, escalation is the only way to respond to a situation which you can’t control.”

“Suddenly, say those who live there, the mood in Moscow feels very different,” said Adrian Blomfield in The Telegraph. Ever since Ukraine’s counteroffensive stalled in 2023, Russia’s capital had “exuded confidence. Its residents could either bathe in the patriotic glory of war or ignore it altogether”. But lately, “bombast” has given way to fear, and to a longing for the conflict to end; and this feeling became more acute this month, when Moscow and its wider region came under fire from a barrage of Ukrainian drones.

It was “one of the most sustained aerial attacks of the conflict” so far. Three people were killed; all four of Moscow’s airports had to close; an oil refinery and residential buildings were hit. “Muscovites listening to drones buzz overhead and air defences firing into the night” were given a “glimpse of life in Kyiv – and they did not like it”.

‘Completely unravelling’

Events have not been in the Kremlin’s favour lately, said the Financial Times. Ukraine has upped its use of long-range drones to target energy and military facilities deep in Russia. On the front line, Russia is “scratching out meagre territorial gains at a devastating human cost”: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently asserted that it is “losing 15,000-20,000 soldiers a month. Not injured. Dead.”

The Russian economy, meanwhile, is ailing: some analysts reckon that inflation is running well above the official 5.6%; and interest rates are at a punishing 14.5%. Vladimir Putin has tried to bury bad news by tightening state control over the internet, said Phillips Payson O’Brien in The Atlantic. Even so, videos have increasingly been circulating in which Russians express “shock at their capital’s vulnerability”. His long-standing narrative, that the conflict in Ukraine is a “special military operation” that needn’t trouble Russia’s elites or middle classes, is “completely unravelling”.

‘Most challenging period’

Putin’s calculus on the war in Ukraine has not changed, said Pjotr Sauer and Shaun Walker in The Guardian. He remains determined to “press on” in the (surely misguided) belief that Moscow can capture the whole of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region by the end of the year. Such “bravado”, however, is doing little to ease the disquiet inside Russia; and speculation is growing that Putin’s regime could be toppled from within.

There have been reports that Sergei Shoigu, the former defence minister, could emerge as a threat to his former boss’s grip on power. The likelihood of an imminent Kremlin coup may be remote; but there’s no doubt that, at 73, Putin is entering “the most challenging period of his long rule”.

After decades of maintaining steady numbers of American service members at sites across Eastern Europe, the United States has begun quietly shifting where and how it deploys troops along Russia’s doorstep. This month, the Pentagon “abruptly” halted an already underway deployment of some 4,000 soldiers to Poland as “part of a larger troop reduction,” fueled in part by President Donald Trump’s “anger over Europe’s refusal to aid in the war with Iran,” said The Washington Post. Similar reductions and withdrawals have been ordered for other American military assets in the region, and White House figures are defending the moves as part of Trump’s America First ethos.

‘Growing rift’

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “last-minute decision” to pause the planned Poland deployment took Pentagon officials and European allies “by surprise,” said Politico. It is the latest instance of an “abrupt personnel move” that has “blindsided both sides of the Atlantic.”

The Pentagon has largely employed the easier process of canceling deployments “as opposed to yanking forces already stationed there,” The Associated Press said. In addition to nixing the planned Polish deployment, Hegseth’s orders also “led to the cancellation of an upcoming deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles.” Hegseth “scrapping plans” for a “long-range fires battalion to be stationed in Europe,” marks a “significant loss for the continent,” said the Post.

The change in troop levels comes as Trump has “repeatedly criticized NATO countries for not participating in the Iran war,” said CNN. Trump has also lashed out at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has said the U.S. is “being ‘humiliated’ by Iran.” The move “reflects a growing rift between the administration and traditional European allies” that has been exacerbated by a “lack of support for the Iran conflict,” the AP said.

‘Overreacting’

Changing the Poland deployment was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision,” said the Pentagon to the Post. However, the military declined to “provide clarification on when the process started and when the order to depart was given,” the outlet said. Pressed on the changes, Vice President JD Vance also downplayed their significance. “We're not talking about pulling every single American troop out ⁠of Europe,” said Vance on ABC News Tuesday. The move merely shifts “some resources around in a way that maximizes ​American security,” and “frankly, a lot of the European media is overreacting to this.”

Polish lawmakers visiting Washington this week “welcomed U.S. statements clarifying” that the troop drawdown was a “temporary measure,” said the Post. Warsaw has also “lobbied to host some of the U.S. troops set to be withdrawn from Germany,” using the argument that “Poland already has the infrastructure needed to accommodate additional American forces,” said Polish broadcaster TVP World.

For now, the White House’s “broader strategy remains unclear,” said Politico. The upcoming German withdrawal is “still in the planning stages.” While it would be a “relatively minor drawdown of the 38,000 U.S. troops in the country,” it also signals to European allies that “they could pay a price for publicly disagreeing with the White House. “

Russian forces last month lost more territory to Ukraine than they were able to capture. The first of such occurrences in nearly two years, this marks an ignominious milestone and potential turning point in Moscow’s years-long invasion effort. At the same time, Russia is losing soldiers faster than it can recruit and deploy them. While the Ukraine front remains an active war zone that has left deep scars on both nations, there is a growing sense among observers that momentum has shifted in Kyiv’s favor.

What did the commentators say?

Russia’s conspicuously “diminished” Victory Day parade this month “signaled its vulnerability,” said The Economist. That sentiment was an “accurate reflection of Russia’s battlefield setbacks,” as well as the country’s “fear of the growing effectiveness of Ukraine’s long-range strikes.”

Russia’s weakened position can be traced to a confluence of three factors, said The Economist, citing research from the Institute for the Study of War: Ukrainian “ground counter-attacks and mid-range strikes,” the end of Russia’s “illicit use of Starlink terminals in Ukraine” and the Kremlin’s “paranoid throttling of the Telegram messaging app at home.” At the same time, Russia’s “exaggerated territorial ambitions and aggressive territorial demands” have run “completely counter to battlefield reality,” said the Institute.

May marks the fifth consecutive month in which Russia has lost “more soldiers than it can replace,” said National Security Journal. Ahead of an expected fifth summer of violence, Russia’s invasion “continues to falter” as the “fortunes of the war” seem to be “trending less and less in Russia’s favor.” Ukraine’s military technological advances have “not been the only key element” in Kyiv’s “recent battlefield gains.” Rather, they come amid Russia’s “growing command-and-control problems within its own military.”

Communications failures “contributed significantly to Russia’s problems” on the battlefield, said the Atlantic Council. After SpaceX “cut the Russian army’s illicit access to the satellite-based Starlink system” this spring, some Russian commanders were “forced to rely on inaccurate maps” showing “exaggerated gains.” In other cases, clusters of Russian troops were deployed “without adequate communication tools or coordination,” leaving them “highly vulnerable to Ukrainian counterattacks.”

All this comes as the public mood within Russia is “souring,” said Alexander Baunov at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. The Putin government has “unceremoniously violated” the terms of its social trade-off offered to the public — that “you can live outside of the war, but you cannot be against it” — and now “society is angry.” Russian authorities have also banned the use of “popular foreign messaging apps” because they are “nontransparent” and boosted the “homegrown” Max app as an alternative. But the “implication” of Max’s transparency “has not gone unnoticed, and people feel their privacy has been rudely invaded.”

Russians “increasingly chafe” at the “restrictions on their liberties” imposed “in pursuit of a battlefield victory that now appears to be unattainable,” said Noah Rothman at the National Review. Moscow lacks “freedom of action” in the theater of battle and has “lost the ability to dictate the tempo of events,” while its economy contracts “following several years of war-driven growth.”

What next?

The Russian military’s “recent communications problems” are “unlikely to persist in their current form indefinitely,” said the Atlantic Council. Moscow has already explored a “range of alternatives, including relay drones and satellite links.” But it will probably take a “number of years for the Russian military to replicate the same level of efficiency previously provided by Starlink.”

Russia’s flagging battlefield progress is a problem for Putin, who has “insisted that Russia’s victory in the war is inevitable,” said CNN. That promise has “always been flawed,” given how “slow and incredibly costly the Russian advances have been.” Still, the momentum shift of late “feels like an inflection point in the war,” said Sir Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College London, to The Economist. “If the Russians have nothing to show for their efforts, I would not be surprised if in some places things start crumbling.”

Just days after he waved goodbye to Donald Trump, Xi Jinping is hosting another world leader, a man the famously opaque Chinese leader has described as his “best friend”.

Vladimir Putin arrives in Beijing today for the two-day summit, their second in less than a year and their 40th, at least, overall. Their “carefully cultivated friendship” is defined by “highly personal rituals” involving vodka, lakeside tea, sports events and even making pancakes, said the South China Morning Post.

It’s obvious what a war-fatigued and internationally isolated Russia seeks from China, on whom it relies for drones and economic support. But it’s less obvious what the now far more powerful China wants from its unstable neighbour.

What did the commentators say?

The timing of Putin’s visit, days after Trump’s, “sends an unmistakable signal”, said The Economist. Xi is emphasising that even if he can “stabilise relations” with the US, it won’t “come at the expense of his ‘no limits’ partnership” with Putin. Those ties could “grow deeper yet” because of the US war in the Middle East. Xi and Putin could share intelligence about Trump’s military action against Venezuela and Iran, whom both count as allies.

Xi could “exploit his newfound leverage” – the balance of power has “shifted dramatically” since Russia’s full-scale invasion – to “secure more sensitive military technology and know-how”. China now produces most of its own weapons, many based on Russian designs; it could now seek “more high-end assistance” in nuclear and ballistic missile areas. Russia is “thought to have been sharing” drone data and expertise garnered from its experience in Ukraine.

A “key aim” for China is “more reliable and sustainable energy supplies”, said Deutsche Welle. China is concerned about dependence on seaborne imports, which account for about 90% of its oil. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the global disruption to supplies make Russian oil a “more attractive” prospect, and Western sanctions on Russian exports mean China can “secure Russian energy at a discount”.

“China and Russia are like a couple in the same bed with different dreams,” said Claus Soong of the Mercator Institute for China Studies. A weakened Russia, or even the collapse of Putin’s regime, would “pose immediate strategic risks for Beijing”. There are signs of cooling since the unlimited friendship they proclaimed in 2022, before Russia invaded Ukraine, but “Russia still has more to offer” than Europe.

Any deals will likely be on Chinese terms, Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center think tank, told the BBC. “Russia is fully in China’s pocket, and China can dictate the terms.”

But despite the asymmetry of power, the pair share vital interests – security along their 2,670-mile (4,300km) border, and China’s market for Russia’s oil, gas and other materials, said Ankur Shah, BBC Global China Unit editor. Russia’s war in Ukraine is also an “asset to Beijing as it considers its options for a potential invasion of Taiwan”. Russia still has some niche military technologies it can sell. But Moscow’s “big advantage” is “its ability to stand its ground”. Russia “may be the junior partner, but it’s also a proud one”.

What next?

Xi’s meeting with Trump, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and cooperation across energy, trade and security are all expected to be part of the discussions tomorrow, said CNN’s senior China reporter, Simone McCarthy.

Both Beijing and Moscow are “weighing up whether to play any role in helping to end a US-Iran conflict”. This could “potentially win each goodwill” with the US, but both also want to use Trump’s actions to “advance their own vision of a world that’s not dominated by American power”.

Any concrete agreements, however, are “unlikely to be made public”, said The Economist. “As during previous visits, announcements are likely to be broad in scope but thin on detail.”

Ukraine in recent months has slowed Russia’s invasion to a near-halt and forced Moscow to ramp up its own security measures. Kyiv’s homegrown drone technology and techniques are now in demand around the world. These accomplishments have come despite diminished U.S. support for Ukraine’s warfighting efforts.

What did the commentators say?

The fight against Russia is “going better than you think,” said Vox. Kyiv still relies on the “fickle U.S. government” for Patriot missiles and battlefield intelligence, but Ukrainian leaders have “more confidence” in their ability to withstand the invasion than they did a few months ago. The “Ukraine line is not really in danger of breaking” even though Russia has “sustained enormous casualties” in attempts to advance, military analyst Franz-Stefan Gady said to the outlet. Ukraine might not be winning the war at this point, said Vox, but it “doesn’t appear to be losing.” Its leaders now believe Ukraine “no longer needs the United States as much” as it did early in the war, said The New York Times.

Ukraine “has finally given up” on President Donald Trump, Phillips Payson O’Brien said at The Atlantic. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “aggressively seeking new diplomatic and military partners” and has sent drones to strike Russian oil facilities despite U.S. warnings against doing so. American leaders have “reduced what little weaponry” they were sending to Ukraine and pressured Zelenskyy to cede territory in exchange for peace. But Ukraine’s ability to adapt with reduced American support “has been startling.”

It is “significant” that Ukraine is “reversing the trend” of Russia’s progress in the war, The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. One sign: Russian leader Vladimir Putin scaled back his country’s usual Victory Day parade in early May out of apparent fears of a Ukrainian drone strike. It is clear the “tide may be turning against Russia” after four years of war. That is an opportunity for the U.S. to “increase support for Ukraine so it can keep the pressure on Russia” and bring the struggle to an end.

The war will not end unless Ukraine inflicts a “decisive defeat” on Russia that poses a “direct threat to Putin’s regime,” Andrew A. Michta said at 19FortyFive. Putin’s military is “well positioned to continue” thanks to the backing of China’s industrial might and money flowing in from oil sales. Trump’s pressure on Zelenskyy to negotiate is a “signal to Moscow that its strategy is working.”

What next?

The U.S. is now looking to Ukraine for help in the war against Iran. The two sides this month signed an agreement to potentially “export military technology to the U.S.” and manufacture Ukranian-designed drones in the United States, said CBS News. Kyiv has “sent drone interceptors and pilots to the Middle East” to defend Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates against Iranian attacks. Ukraine is a “hub for drone innovation,” said the Financial Times. That is expertise the U.S. now needs.

As the Iran war continues, food and vital medicines in the country are becoming increasingly scarce, said The Australian. The costs of some medicines “have risen by 400%”, and antidepressants and sleeping pills are reportedly being “dispensed without prescriptions”.

This is not unique to the Middle East, as other countries around the world face the threat of conflict, or suffer under pressures of economic and political repression. As mental health crises and resources continue to stretch, many fear the consequences could echo the fallout from the Covid pandemic.

A ‘kind of coma’

Some pharmacists in Iran have called the boom in antidepressants a form of “mass sedation”, said The Australian. These healthcare professionals believe that relaxing the strictness of distribution policy keeps the public in a “state of artificial calm” designed to “delay any popular uprising while the war continues”.

Access to the country’s black market has also been damaged since the start of the war. Built on sanctions, import shortages and “hoarding” by middlemen, the black market is “not new”. But with the joint threat of war and internet shutdown, the “shadow supply chain” has been significantly “disrupted”. As the war continues, Iran is stuck in a “kind of coma, caught between economic collapse and the dream of a better future”.

The rise in antidepressant use is part of a broader system to “doctrinise control of Iranians’ minds and bodies”, said Atlantic Council. Observers from abroad have “overlooked the concerted regime strategy to deliberately engineer this state of depression as a suppression mechanism”. By outlawing cultural events such as Valentine’s Day, “Chaharshanbe Suri (the festival of fire)” and “Shabeh Yalda (winter solstice)”, the regime has arguably “promoted gloom and hopelessness to the extent that citizens become paralysed and incapable of challenging the political status quo”.

Like Iran, Lebanon has been struck by the ongoing conflict, and has appeared to follow a similar pattern of “pushing anxious residents toward sedatives and sleeping pills”, said Y Net News. Though no official data has been released, news outlet Al-Akhbar, which has ties to Hezbollah, claimed that the “demand for sedatives had jumped by 300% since the fighting began”, said Y Net. This figure, though unverified, “points to a population under mounting psychological strain”.

Global impact

And in Cuba, economic and political crises present an “outlook that feels bleaker than the collapse of the Soviet Union”, said The Guardian. As a growing mental health crisis “envelops the island”, many citizens are “turning to prescription drugs” to cope with the US-imposed oil blockade, and still reeling from years of economic decline.

Cuba is stuck in a vicious cycle, as the economy shrinks – GDP has “contracted by 17% since 2019” – it means state pharmacies lie “empty”, while demand for their services increases. People are “leaving in large numbers”, which exacerbates the cycle further. In the last five years, “up to 20% of the population” has emigrated, which has in turn added to the “psychological load on those who chose (or were forced) to remain”.

In its ongoing campaign against Ukraine, Russia is experiencing a “spiral” of antidepressant use, said El País. The country has registered “record sales” of the medications every year since 2020. Last year’s total “nearly tripled pharmaceutical consumption” from 2019. In the same year, figures from Russian consultancy DSM show that after peace negotiations were “unsuccessfully reinitiated” in 2024, sales of antidepressants grew 36%. It appears the war, with its subsequent health crises, has had a “larger emotional impact on its population” than the Covid pandemic.

The seemingly limitless budgets and bottomless demand for content of the streaming television era have allowed studios to dramatize both long-ago and recent disasters. These might never have gotten the Hollywood treatment a generation ago, ushering in a little-noticed golden age of disaster television headlined by the following eight series.

‘Tsunami: The Aftermath’ (2006)

The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was by far the deadliest natural disaster of the 21st century, and one of the worst in recorded history, killing more than 227,000 people. Much less well-known than the 2012 film “The Impossible,” HBO Max’s “Tsunami: The Aftermath” is gripping viewing.

Ian Carter (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a tourist in Thailand who searches for his missing wife and daughter after the wave strikes, while Tim Roth plays Nick Fraser, a journalist reporting on the almost unfathomable human loss who begins to wonder why his bosses want information about Westerners but not about the much more widespread local casualties and devastation. The “first-rate cast” also includes Toni Collette and a pre-Downton Abbey Hugh Bonneville. The series depicts the aftermath of the disaster, showing that “in death, human lives develop very different values to different communities,” said Virginian Heffernan at The New York Times. (HBO Max)

‘Chernobyl’ (2019)

HBO’s riveting, five-part dramatization of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster richly deserved its 10 Emmy Awards. Jared Harris is superb as Soviet nuclear scientist Valery Legasov, who helps convince apparatchik Boris Shcherbina (Stellan Skarsgard) that the situation is sufficiently grave that it can’t be covered up.

The series recreates ordinary Soviet life from the period with painstaking detail and spares no one and nothing in its criticisms of what led to the disaster and how it was handled. The superb ensemble includes Lyudmilla Ignatenko (Jessie Buckley) as the wife of a firefighter mortally wounded in the initial hours of the disaster and the fictional Ulana Khomyuk (Emily Watson) as a scientist who warns political leaders about the consequences of inaction. Chernobyl remains, thankfully, history’s worst nuclear disaster. Though the series takes many creative liberties with history, it “gets a basic truth right — that the Chernobyl disaster was more about lies, deceit and a rotting political system than it was about bad engineering or abysmal management and training,” said Henry Fountain at The New York Times. (HBO Max)

‘Five Days at Memorial’ (2022)

Hurricane Katrina, which killed 1,833 people in August 2005, remains one of the most under-dramatized disasters in memory. Perhaps audiences aren’t ready to confront it yet, much like the Covid-19 pandemic that remains without a significant dramatization.

One exception is the Apple TV+ drama “Five Days at Memorial,” which recreates the events at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Anna Pou (Vera Farmiga), Karen Wynn (Adepero Oduye), and Susan Mulderick (Cherry Jones) give viewers the perspective of a doctor, a nurse and an administrator at the hospital, which quickly loses power and access to clean water as the disaster gathers momentum. Framed by a post-hurricane investigation into the deaths of 45 patients at the hospital, the eight-part series is a “gripping affair, an engrossing medical thriller that doubles as a powerful indictment of government and corporate inaction and outright neglect,” said Manuel Betancourt at A.V. Club. (Apple TV+)

‘High Water’ (2023)

Disasters: They happen everywhere! In July 1997, parts of Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic were struck by catastrophic river flooding that left more than 100 people dead. “High Water” tells the story of the Polish city of Wrocław, the country’s third largest city, which was completely inundated by floodwaters.

Fictional hydrologist Jasmina Tremer (Agnieszka Zulewska) is stuck with the unenviable task of convincing the provincial bureaucrat Jakub (Tomasz Schuchardt) and other officials that disaster is imminent, especially given that they all seem more focused on ensuring a successful visit from the Pope than on preventing tragedy. The series takes its time getting to the main event, building tension and sympathy for its characters before plunging them into ruin. A “character-driven ensemble” carries the show that despite the heavy subject matter, “doesn’t slip into the realm of soapy drama,” said Greg Wheeler at The Review Geek. (Netflix)

‘The Days’ (2023)

No less harrowing than “Chernobyl” is “The Days,” an eight-part dramatization of the Fukushima-Daichi nuclear disaster following the catastrophic 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Unlike its better-known counterpart, “The Days” is a much more faithful rendition of events, beginning with the earthquake-driven tsunami that inundated the plant and knocked its power offline.

The series is told from three perspectives, including the fictional Prime Minister Shinji Azuma (Fumiyo Kohinata), the power plant’s courageous manager, Yoshida (Koji Yakusho), and several workers who risked their lives to prevent the worst-case scenario from taking shape. The series takes “great pains to include every relevant number, fluctuating dial and horrifying factoid,” said Jonathon Wilson at Ready Steady Cut, and its “ability to ratchet up tension through its rapidly worsening disasters and complexifying circumstances is often profound.” (Netflix)

‘La Palma’ (2024)

The only show on our list that isn’t based on a true story is the Norwegian series “La Palma,” which depicts a mega-tsunami triggered by the eruption and collapse of a volcano in the Canary Islands. Loosely based on a controversial hypothesis, the show is built on familiar but very well-executed beats.

Fredrik (Anders Baasmo Christiansen), his wife, Jennifer (Ingrid Bolso Berdal), and their children, Tobias (Bernard Storm Lager) and Sara (Alma Gunther), are tourists caught up in the disaster, while Marie (Thea Sofie Loch Naess) and Haukur (Ólafur Darri Ólafsson) are scientists who try and fail to warn the authorities that disaster is about to strike. Norway has quietly produced some of the best disaster films of the century, including 2015’s “The Wave,” and “La Palma” fits squarely in that tradition. The “relatively small main cast and a lack of melodrama make the show worth a watch,” said Joel Keller at Decider. (Netflix)

‘Every Minute Counts’ (2024-2025)

On the morning of September 19, 1985, a massive earthquake struck the megalopolis of Mexico City, killing about 10,000 people and leveling large swathes of the city. We see the tragedy through the eyes of several ordinary people, including Ángel Zambrano (Osvaldo Benavides), an obstetrician who helped evacuate dozens of newborn babies from a collapsing hospital, a TV reporter, Camila (Maya Zapata), and Chuy (Olaff Herrera) her cameraman.

A show that “can be exhausting to watch,” it is also an indictment of the authoritarian regime that governed Mexico at the time, depicting the consequences of “decades of government corruption that led to unenforced building codes,” said Melissa Camacho at Common Sense Media. “Every Minute Counts” is also the only listed series that was granted a second season, which was released in September 2025 and follows the surviving protagonists as the post-earthquake hours take shape. (Prime Video)

Scientists are pushing for “radical” measures against climate change, proposing the construction of a dam across the Bering Strait that would link Alaska and Russia, said Science.

A study by University of Utrecht academics Jelle Soons and Henk Dijkstra suggests that this would be a decisive way to protect the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is instrumental in regulating the planet’s sea temperature and climate.

Three separate dams would be needed across the strait, which is 51 miles (82km) wide at its narrowest, due to the two islands that lie in the middle, with the longest section spanning roughly 24 miles (38 km), said LiveScience. Similar structures already exist in the Netherlands and South Korea, although “not in remote locations with strong currents and sea ice, or with rival geopolitical powers on opposite sides”.

‘Grave’ dangers

Building a dam in the Bering Strait is just as “out there” an idea as “refreezing the Arctic” or “floating a giant parasol in outer space”, said The New York Times. The concern for the continuation of the AMOC is very real, however.

Acting as a “vast oceanic conveyor belt”, it carries tropical, salty currents from the Atlantic towards Europe. There, it releases the warmth into the air, which regulates the temperature across the continent. Once cooled, it circles back south, influencing rainfall patterns in Africa, South America, and beyond.

There is a “growing body of evidence” that human-caused global warming could cause it to “shut down or slow significantly”, which would have “grave effects” on weather patterns on multiple continents.

“At first glance”, the role of the Bering Strait “isn’t all that obvious” in this global cycle. However, it acts as the “gateway for large quantities of fresh water” to flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean, then into the Atlantic. A dam in this region would alter the balance of fresh and salt water in all three oceans.

The University of Utrecht study was based on simulations indicating that the AMOC was “much stronger” in the Pliocene era – roughly 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago. During this era, sea levels in the strait were lower, exposing an intercontinental land bridge, leading Soons, the study’s lead researcher, to wonder “could we do this again?”, said New Scientist.

No ‘escape hatch’

It is an “audacious proposal”, and a project that would be on an unseen and “truly epic scale”. Researchers have been “mulling it over” at the European Geosciences Union general assembly in Vienna this month. But “because we don’t fully understand the AMOC, we can’t be sure of the consequences of such an intervention”. “These drastic things really do have big uncertainties attached”, Jonathan Rosser, a climate researcher at the London School of Economics, told the magazine.

“This is one of those climate ideas that sounds almost ridiculous when you first hear it”, said Earth.com. In fact, the “real takeaway” from the study, and its discussion at a conference level, is “how worried scientists have become about the AMOC”. “When researchers start seriously modelling something this extreme, it tells you that the level of concern is high.”

Even if this project were given the green light – following much more advanced and rigorous modelling – it would “raise huge environmental, political, legal and logistical questions”. The scale of the intervention, let alone the complex political relations between the US and Russia, would mean this project would not be anywhere as simple as “building a bridge or a seawall”. “It would be one of the boldest and strangest geoengineering projects ever seriously contemplated.”

Even then, it does not promise an “escape hatch”, or get-out-of-jail-free card. “Once you are debating mega-dams to prop up ocean currents”, it’s a clear sign that progress towards reducing emissions “has not gone nearly well enough”.

For nearly a quarter of a century, Vladimir Putin has led the Russian Federation as one of the most successful authoritarians on Earth. But more than four years after launching an all-out invasion of Ukraine, the Russian president synonymous with Moscow’s kleptocratic rule finds himself in unfamiliar territory. Russia is now roiled by rumors of organized unrest with months to go before parliamentary elections, while Putin himself faces allegations of extreme isolation and a weakening grip on power.

What did the commentators say?

There is a sense of “mounting unease within the Kremlin” as it grapples with domestic and economic problems plus “increasing signs of dissent and setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine,” said CNN, citing a report from a European intelligence agency. The Kremlin has “dramatically increased” Putin’s security, even installing surveillance systems “in the homes of close staffers” in measures “prompted by a wave of assassinations of top Russian military figures and fears of a coup.” Putin is “increasingly concerned” about an alleged “plot by members of the Russian political elite to topple him, or even assassinate him with drones,” said The Times. The president and his family have “stopped visiting their luxury residences” and Putin is spending “weeks at a time in bunkers.”

The report focuses on “growing internal tensions” between Putin and former Defense Minister and current Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu, said the Kyiv Post. Considered a “potential coup risk” for his “continued influence within the military leadership,” Shoigu has not “personally” been linked with hard evidence to “any wrongdoing.” The arrest this past March of one of Shoigu’s deputies was “presented in the report” as a “sign of weakening informal protections among the elite” that has contributed to the tensions.

Putin’s slipping power is “not only about falling approval ratings,” said The Economist. Russia’s future is “no longer discussed” in terms of what Putin “will decide” but as “something that will unfold independently of him — and possibly already without him.” This waning authority comes from a “confluence” of factors, including rising wartime costs and a “growing demand for rules among elites who have been forced back into Russia, along with their capital.” Shifting geopolitical winds and the collapse of Russia’s previous “social contract,” in which the state “stayed out of people’s private lives while citizens stayed out of politics,” have created a “situation which in chess is known as a Zugzwang: when every move worsens the position.”

This isn’t to say that “revolution is imminent” or that the 73-year-old Putin “will be sidelined soon,” said The Wall Street Journal. Nevertheless, the “change in mood is remarkable” compared to “just last December,” when Russia was “buoyed by hopes” of a Moscow-friendly, Trump-negotiated ceasefire with Ukraine.

Changes in national mood notwithstanding, the “sudden spate” of coup-oriented reporting stemming from the “conveniently anonymous ‘European intelligence agency’” looks “suspiciously more like a psyop meant to generate paranoia in the Russian elite than a serious assessment,” said The Spectator. Europe has a “desperate appetite” for a “deus ex machina, for some miraculous end to the Ukraine war,” and a coup to oust Putin “certainly fits the bill.” Still, this would “hardly be the first time” intelligence services “succumbed to the temptation to provide their masters with what they want, not need, to hear.”

What next?

For the time being, Moscow “understands that there could be serious discontent ahead” and has accordingly “decided to allow low-level discontent to manifest itself,” said former Putin adviser Marat Gelman at the Journal. As things stand, Putin has “enough resources to crush any civil revolt.”

“In Russia, they say that things don’t happen fast, but when they happen, they happen fast,” former U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan said to the Journal. While he “wouldn’t have said it a year or two ago,” civic revolt is “possible now.”

What happened

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday presided over the “most ‌scaled-back Victory Day parade in years,” Reuters said. Afterward, he told reporters he thought the Ukraine war was “coming to an end.” President Donald Trump last week said Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had agreed to exchange 1,000 war prisoners and pause the fighting through Monday to mark the annual celebration of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.

Who said what

Russia’s “markedly pared down” Victory Day parade “went forward amid veiled threats from Ukraine,” Radio Free Europe said. Zelenskyy “issued a mocking statement” beforehand “saying he was authorizing the Kremlin parade to be held” free from attacks. If Putin’s parade was “subdued” because he “feared a long-range Ukrainian drone strike” in Red Square. This is “one more sign that the tide may be turning against Russia after four long years of death,” The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial.

What next?

Russia’s Ukraine offensive “has slowed to a crawl” and its “challenges on the battlefield complicate the narrative of imminent victory” Putin is “selling” Trump to convince him Kyiv needs to cede land in U.S. peace talks, The New York Times said. At its current rate, Moscow would need “more than three decades to seize full control of the Donbas.”

One of the world’s biggest and most prestigious art events has opened mired in political controversy, resignations and boycotts over the ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East.

The 61st edition of the Venice Biennale, which takes place every two years, began on Tuesday “under grey clouds and rain showers”, reflecting an atmosphere dominated by “political tension, parties and protest”, said Lanre Bakare in The Guardian.

What’s the cause?

The festival had been thrown into turmoil even before it formally opened. Last week, the entire five-person biennale jury resigned over the decision to allow Russia to participate – they previously stated they would not give awards to artists from countries whose leaders were facing charges of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Russia did not show in the past two editions because of the outcry over its war in Ukraine, but was allowed to reopen its pavilion this year in what The New York Times called a “soft-power opportunity” for the Kremlin.

The Biennale argued it is “an open institution” that “rejects any form of exclusion or censorship of art”, but its decision sparked outrage from the Italian government – with Culture Minister Alessandro Giuli boycotting the opening – and the European Commission, which has threatened to terminate or suspend its €2 million (£1.73 million) grant for the exhibition.

Why the change in stance?

In letters seen by the Financial Times, the commission warned Russia’s participation would violate a ban on “providing services” to the Kremlin, as the pavilion is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government.

“By not respecting EU sanctions, Biennale has called into question its obligation to ensure respect of EU values,” the Commission’s agency for culture wrote.

With the threat of further protests and boycotts ahead of the public opening on Saturday, organisers finally bowed to pressure and agreed to close the Russian pavilion to the public.

Tetyana Berezhna, a Ukrainian culture minister, told The Guardian that not opening Russia's pavilion to the public was a “meaningful step” but that the country’s “symbolic presence” was still powerful.

“Cultural platforms shape global perception,” she said. “They define what is considered acceptable and whose voices are amplified. In this context, every form of representation matters.”

What about Israel?

There have also been protests aimed at Israel’s entry. It shuttered its pavilion in 2024 amid growing condemnation of its occupation of Gaza, with the building guarded by military personnel.

This year it is back, but “if anything, Israel’s presence has proved even more divisive” than Russia’s, said The Telegraph’s chief art critic Alastair Sooke.

Last autumn, an activist collective, Art Not Genocide Alliance (ANGA), organised a letter demanding the exclusion of Israel that was signed by almost 220 artists, curators and “art workers” involved in this year’s show. It has invited people to stand “in solidarity” against what it calls a “genocidal state” perpetrating “Zionist atrocities” in Palestine and plans to protest the participation of Israel this Friday.

Although it did not name specific names, the jury’s decision not to award artists from countries whose leaders are facing charges by the ICC includes Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Vladimir Putin.

The Israeli foreign ministry responded to the statement, saying: “The political jury has transformed the Biennale from an open artistic space of free, boundless ideas into a spectacle of false, anti-Israeli political indoctrination.”

“For some, the jury’s resignation was predictable”, said Sooke, yet “for those on the other side of the debate, excluding any country from the Biennale smacks of censorship”.

“Their decision discriminated against me on a racial basis,” said the Romanian-born Israeli sculptor Belu-Simion Fainaru, who’s representing Israel. “I’m an artist and have equal rights, and I can’t be judged by belonging to a country or a race. I should just be judged on the quality and message of my art.”

Sooke said arguments over whether or not artists should be accountable for the actions of their state or country have highlighted “the creakiness of the Biennale’s national pavilion system”, one that seems outdated and “stymied by geopolitics, given the cosmopolitan nature of contemporary art”.

Russia’s Africa Corps is reeling after an alliance of separatist and jihadist groups in Mali launched a series of attacks on the country’s Putin-backed junta government in late April. Is this merely an instance of renewed violence in a country that has seen multiple coups this century? Or does the bruising rebuke to a feared Russian expeditionary force mark a potential crisis for one of West Africa’s most powerful and demanding benefactors?

‘Limits of Moscow’s reach and military might’

The “series of reversals” experienced by Mali’s “Moscow-backed military government” has “dented Russia’s image as a self-styled security guarantor in Africa,” said Reuters. The recent violence also “threatens” Moscow’s “strategic and economic interests ​on the continent.”

The attacks across Mali by “al Qaeda-linked rebels and mostly-Muslim Tuareg tribesmen” mark a “turning point in Moscow’s influence in West Africa,” said Fox News. Russia has been “grabbing Mali’s precious minerals, including gold,” while promising to “protect the country against the rebels.” The “wave of coordinated, surprise attacks” by Malian rebels has “exposed the limits of Moscow’s reach and military might in the impoverished West African state,” said The Guardian.

In recent years, Mali had “drastically pivoted toward Russia” as the junta pushed out Western governmental support, said The New York Times. Russia has dispatched “thousands” of fighters from its Africa Corps, the military intelligence-run force born from the infamous mercenary Wagner Group that “provides security support to several African governments” in exchange for payment or “lucrative contracts for access to resources.” Mali is part of a chain of African nations, including Burkina Faso and Niger, that Moscow has “worked hard to cultivate” for both “geopolitical clout and access to mineral wealth,” said Irina Filatova, an honorary research associate at the University of Cape Town, to Reuters.

Withdrawing from Malian sites during the recent attacks “punctures the claim that Moscow could deliver where France and other Western allies could not,” particularly in the town of Kidal, which had “come to symbolize Russia’s promise” of stability, said Bloomberg. By “negotiating themselves out of Kidal” and “leaving their Malian counterparts behind,” Russia “doesn’t give a good impression of them as security partners,” Nina Wilén, the director of the Africa Programme at the Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations, said to the outlet.

Insurgents participating in the past week’s attacks were not expecting to “seize and control cities,” said a “security source” to La Agence France-Presse, per France 24. The goal instead was to “carry out coordinated actions in order to at least capture Kidal, which is a rather powerful symbol.”

‘Reputational damage’

The Africa Corps has “really lost credibility” in the region, said Ulf Laessing, the West Africa program lead at the Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung think tank, to Al Jazeera. Putin’s forces will “struggle to attract new clients” because they “just didn’t do their job — it’s reputational damage, what has happened.”

Russia’s potential “collapse” in Mali “threatens the region” but it also presents Washington an “opportunity to reassert the control it had foolishly relinquished,” said Hudson Institute Fellow Zineb Riboua at The Washington Post. African nations once tight with Moscow “have seen what Russian reliability looks like.” As those bonds are increasingly called into question, the U.S. should “seek to make that reversal permanent.”

‘Turn on, tune in, cash out … the US right used to fear psychedelics. Now it wants to sell them.’

Kojo Koram at The Guardian

Trump “signed a new presidential executive order to accelerate mainstream access to medical treatment based on psychedelic drugs,” but “this executive order has not come out of the blue,” says Kojo Koram. Long “caricatured as a marker of countercultural decadence, psychedelics have been rebranded by recent clinical research as potentially transformative mental-health treatments.” It’s a “worldview that has found a comfortable new home” in an “administration that is, against all odds, transforming America’s relationship with drugs.”

Read more

‘How Putin and Zelenskyy view the war in Iran’

Sudarsan Raghavan at The New Yorker

Nearly “two months into Iran’s war, its ripple effects are being felt around the world,” says Sudarsan Raghavan. The “war is also having a less visible, yet potentially more consequential, impact on some of the world’s other conflicts and crises.” The war in Ukraine is “increasingly connected to the Middle East conflict.” It is “in Russia’s favor to prolong the war in Iran” because the “longer it lasts, the longer Washington’s attention is not on Ukraine.”

Read more

‘Could Ozempic save families from addiction and foster care?’

Naomi Schaefer Riley at The Boston Globe

GLP-1 drugs “like Ozempic and Wegovy are often called miraculous for their ability to promote weight loss, reduce the risk of diabetes and even lower the likelihood of dementia,” says Naomi Schaefer Riley. But “what if they can help combat drug and alcohol addiction by tempering cravings and ultimately prevent parents from losing their children to foster care?” This “class of drugs has wide-ranging health benefits and few side effects compared to other medically assisted treatments.”

Read more

‘Religions all over the world are being blasphemed and perverted’

Janice Kennedy at the Toronto Star

Religion is “having a moment. And not in a good way,” says Janice Kennedy. No “matter its name, religion usually embraces three elements: faith in a divinity, rites and rituals honoring that faith and an inviolable moral code.” But this is “abased and abused by con artists twisting religion to fit insufferable egos and despicable political ends.” Committing “terrible deeds in the name of an almighty god is abhorrent to all people of good will.”

Read more

What happened

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Russia on Monday morning after a weekend of diplomatic trips to Pakistan and Oman, but no direct talks with the United States. President Donald Trump on Saturday called off an announced trip to Islamabad by his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, saying it would be a waste of time given Iran’s lack of commitment to meet with them.

Who said what

“If they want to talk, they can come to us, or they can call us,” Trump told Fox News on Sunday. With U.S.-Iran talks “derailed, at least for now,” The New York Times said, “Tehran and Washington are sinking into an awkward limbo of neither peace, nor war,” with each projecting confidence they can “outlast the other in a standoff with drastic stakes for the global economy.” Pakistani officials said “indirect talks” were ongoing even as they “scrambled to reignite” direct negotiations, The Associated Press said.

What next?

Trump was “expected to hold a Situation Room meeting” on Monday after receiving an Iranian proposal to “reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the war,” Axios said, “with nuclear negotiations postponed for a later stage.”

The Chernobyl disaster occurred when technicians at the power station, near Pripyat in the north of Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, ran a test on reactor number four to simulate shutting it down during an electricity blackout. A combination of reactor design flaws and technician errors meant that it overheated, leading to a power surge, triggering an explosion.

The reactor's 192 tonnes of uranium fuel partially melted, destroying the reactor core. Graphite blocks inside caught fire, and the resulting explosion blew the reactor's 1,000-tonne concrete and steel lid into the air, then destroyed much of the turbine hall. Radioactive material spewed into the environment: iodine, strontium, caesium and some plutonium.

The World Nuclear Association says the disaster was caused by a “flawed” reactor design and lax safety – both consequences of “Cold War isolation”.

How did the authorities respond?

About 1,000 emergency workers and power station staff, largely untrained and poorly protected, were brought in during the first days of the accident to put out the fire. Soviet officials initially remained in denial; unable to comprehend the gravity of the situation and desperate to contain the bad publicity. But in early May, with the reactor fire still burning, and high radiation levels detected across Europe, the authorities moved to drastic action. A 30km exclusion zone was imposed. Bags of sand were dropped onto the reactor from the open doors of helicopters (analysts now think this did more harm than good).

When the fire finally stopped, men climbed onto the roof to clear radioactive debris. Many suffered from acute radiation sickness as a result. In total, at least 600,000 clear-up personnel (“liquidators”) from all over the Soviet Union were involved in the clean-up. During 1986, a huge concrete “sarcophagus” structure was built to confine the radioactive materials at the explosion site. This was largely successful; estimates suggest that at least 80% of the original radioactive material remains inside the reactor. (In 2017 a new structure was completed at a cost of £1.3 billion.)

What were the immediate effects?

The official death toll is just 31; two workers at the plant were killed that day. But in 2005, a UN report suggested a total of 4,000 people would eventually die because of radiation exposure. According to UN reports, 134 people, mostly plant workers and emergency workers, received a confirmed diagnosis of Acute Radiation Sickness.

Radiation destroys cell walls and other key molecular structures within the body. Symptoms can begin within one or two hours and may last for several months; they include vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, fever, dizziness, hair loss, and blood in vomit and stools.

The human cost of the disaster was documented by Svetlana Alexievich, a Belarusian journalist, who interviewed some 500 eyewitnesses for her 1997 book “Chernobyl Prayer”. One of the most harrowing stories concerns a woman who stayed at the bedside of her dying husband, a firefighter. She described watching his body decay, his skin crack, boils develop. When she touched him – against doctors' orders – his skin came away in her hands.

And the wider effects?

Chernobyl is one of only two nuclear accidents rated at the maximum severity on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan. The longer-term effects have been mind-boggling in scale. Some 350,000 people had to be evacuated; about 500 hectares of forest turned red and died; roughly 15 million hectares of land were contaminated.

At least 5% of the reactor's radioactive fuel is estimated to have been carried into the air over Ukraine, Belarus and Russia – and the rest of Europe. Over 20% of Belarus's land was affected. Radioactive clouds spread, causing panic as far away as Germany and Britain; millions of litres of milk were dumped; livestock was destroyed or banned from sale. Around 5,000 thyroid cancers have been linked to iodine contamination of milk supplies by the accident, 15 of them fatal.

Chernobyl is often described as the most expensive disaster in history, with an estimated cost of $180 billion (£133 billion) for Ukraine alone. By 2003, about 3.3 million Ukrainians were receiving benefits as Chernobyl “victims”.

What is in Chernobyl now?

The Chernobyl exclusion zone encompasses the 2,600 sq km area within the 30km radius. It is under military control, and public access is restricted to prevent contamination. Today, the zone is one of the most radioactively contaminated areas on Earth; the reactor is still smouldering. It draws significant scientific interest for the high levels of radiation exposure in the environment – and, until the war, was popular with disaster tourists. Due to the lack of human activity, it has become a thriving nature sanctuary, with some of the highest biodiversity and thickest forests in all Ukraine. European bison, golden eagles, lynx and elk inhabit the area.

How did the disaster affect nuclear policy?

It kickstarted a global push for stricter nuclear regulation. Governments were nervous because similar reactors were in use around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN-affiliated agency, was tasked with improving international safety standards for reactor designs, and with coordinating long-term radiation monitoring. The agency does not have the power to enforce these rules, but the disaster motivated many countries to comply with regulations.

Politically, the effects were also very significant. Chernobyl destroyed public trust and exposed systemic failures within the USSR, particularly in Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev maintained the accident was a more important factor in the fall of the Soviet Union than his programmes of liberal reform. Oddly enough, at least one of Chernobyl's other reactors remained in use until 2000.

The EU has finally signed off a €90 billion (£78 billion) loan to Ukraine after Hungary dropped its veto. The loan – agreed in December but blocked for months by Hungary in a row over an oil pipeline – is “a question of our life, of surviving”, said Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Without the money, his country was struggling to manufacture the number of weapons it was capable of producing, he told CNN.

“Ukraine really needs this,” said EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas. “It’s also a sign that Russia cannot outlast Ukraine.”

What did the commentators say?

“European officials had found ways” to get some funds to Ukraine during the delay but this no-interest loan provides “far more substantial financial support”, as Moscow’s full-scale invasion extends into a fifth year, said The New York Times. Ukraine will only need to repay the loan if a future peace deal includes Russia paying reparations.

Having finally secured the loan, Zelenskyy has renewed calls to restart peace talks with Vladimir Putin, said The Independent – although US mediators are currently “preoccupied with the conflict in Iran”.

A resumption of talks seems unlikely any time soon. Only a few weeks ago, the Russian president gathered key oligarchs behind closed doors and asked them to contribute financially to the war, said independent Russian news outlet The Bell. “We will keep fighting,” its sources reported Putin as saying. “We will push to the borders of Donbas.”

And it’s the question of Donbas that led to the most recent peace talks being “placed on hold”, said political scientist Samuel Charap and military analyst Jennifer Kavanagh in Foreign Affairs. Donald Trump’s administration had “centred the talks on a core bargain”: that Ukraine cede the roughly 20% of the Donbas region it still holds to Russia “in exchange for security commitments from the US and Europe”. This approach exaggerated “the significance of territory for Russia and the importance of Western assurances for Ukraine”. It also neglected to “address the key challenge in ending any war”: convincing each side that “its enemy will really commit to peace”.

What next?

A Kremlin spokesperson has been reported as saying Putin would only meet Zelenskyy “for the purpose of finalising agreements”, said The Guardian. Instead, Russia wants the US to send Trump’s delegates Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – who “have repeatedly listened to Putin’s maximalist demands” – to Moscow.

While the EU loan is “sorted”, there is now “another issue altogether”: Ukraine gaining membership of the EU, said Henry Foy in the Financial Times. Zelenskyy has long seen this as key to securing Ukraine’s long-term security and prosperity. “Belligerent public opposition” to the idea from outgoing Hungarian president Viktor Orbán had long “provided a useful shield for many other EU leaders to huddle behind” but, with his departure, “they will be forced to clarify their positions”.

Former Bulgarian President Rumen Radev will soon have a new title, and with it a whole lot of new power. Radev won Bulgaria’s parliamentary elections on Sunday and will become the country’s next prime minister. But while the election victory by Radev’s newly created Progressive Bulgaria party could represent a fresh beginning for a nation fraught with political strife, some people are concerned about Radev’s ties to Russia.

Radev’s beginnings

Radev, 62, was born in Dimitrovgrad, Bulgaria, and his early career was dedicated to military service. He is an ex-fighter pilot and former commander in the Bulgarian Air Force, and received several military merits before turning his attention to politics. Radev has often used his “daredevil flying skills to build his political brand,” said Politico. When he first ran for president in 2016, the Bulgarian Air Force “heavily promoted his loop-the-loops in a high-profile air show.”

Upon winning the ceremonial role of the presidency in 2017, Radev “quickly made up for his lack of political experience, capitalizing on his military background to cultivate the persona of a fearless patriot uncorrupted by party politics,” said Politico. In January 2026, after anti-corruption protests toppled the government, he became the first Bulgarian head of state to step down from the presidency and announced his candidacy for prime minister. During his campaign, Radev “cast himself as an opponent of the country’s entrenched mafia and its ties to high-ranking politicians,” said The Associated Press.

‘A more pro-Russian stance’

Radev has largely “positioned himself as the populist standard-bearer for anti-corruption protests that brought down the government in December,” said The Washington Post. But many in Europe are concerned about his potential friendliness with the Kremlin. During his campaign, Radev made it clear his government will take a “more pro-Russian stance, consistently opposing aid to Ukraine and saying he wanted to restore relations with Moscow.”

The new prime minister has also criticized the European Union and “called for a new security architecture in Europe, echoing a key Kremlin drive,” said the Post. If tensions were to continue rising between Bulgaria’s new government and the EU, it could cause financial strain in the country, as “Bulgaria’s economy is heavily dependent on EU funding.” Radev’s easy victory in the election could also “strengthen his hand in opposing a proposed EU ban on imported Russian energy supplies.”

Other analysts believe that Radev’s Russian coziness is more of a political tactic. Radev will probably be “unlikely to seek to be disruptive in relations within the European Union,” Vessela Tcherneva, the deputy director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said to The New York Times. In the “coming economic crisis, he would not risk the freezing of EU funds.” Radev’s EU criticism, particularly “regarding financial and military support for Ukraine or sanctions against Russia,” will be “aimed primarily at the domestic audience” and may not translate into action, Maria Simeonova of the European Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.

Some pro-democracy activists feel that Radev’s win could give Bulgaria its “best chance in recent history to do away with the stranglehold of corruption and the weak, unstable governments that have plagued it for decades,” said the Times. Radev’s 44% margin of victory may allow him to create a strong coalition, which could “enact structural and constitutional reforms to tackle the corruption that has stymied Bulgaria’s institutions.”

Former fighter pilot Rumen Radev led his party into Bulgaria’s parliamentary election promising to take on the “corrupt officials, conspirators and extremists” he claimed had run the country into the ground.

Voters responded on Sunday by handing his newly formed Progressive Bulgaria (PB) coalition the “single biggest vote haul in a ‌generation”, which “paves the way for greater political stability after eight elections in five years”, said Reuters.

“This is a victory of hope over mistrust, a victory of freedom over fear,” the 62-year-old Radev said after his landslide victory. Bulgarians had “rejected the complacency and arrogance of the old parties and did not succumb to lies and manipulation”.

Corruption crusader

Radev rose through the ranks of the Bulgarian air force to become a major general and finally head of the service. A relative latecomer to politics, he was elected to the largely ceremonial role of president in 2016. He held the position for nine years, keeping himself above the chaos and corruption scandals that have dominated Bulgarian politics in recent years.

In January he resigned, forming his new PB movement to run in the election after massive anti-corruption protests brought down the previous government. On Sunday he won just under 45% of the vote, giving Bulgaria its first parliamentary majority in nearly 30 years.

The “main factors” driving Radev’s victory were “deep frustration over years of futile anti-corruption efforts, concern over rising prices… and a potent mix of pro-Russian sentiment”, said Atanas Rusev, from the Center for the Study of Democracy in Sofia. “Radev played astutely on all these anxieties.”

The result “raises expectations of an end to the country’s cycle of short-lived coalition governments”, said Deutsche Welle. Radev had pledged to “crack down on corruption, tackle inflation and pursue a more independent foreign policy within the EU – one that does not exclude dialogue with Russia”.

EU tightrope

A Radev-led government is “bad news for Ukraine and would represent a significant win for Russia”, said Jan Surotchak on the Atlantic Council think tank. In the short term, his victory will “likely mean an end to Bulgarian ammunition supplies to Ukraine, forcing Nato to seek other sources”. The US-backed northern corridor for energy supplies to Eastern Europe could also “lose out in favour of Turk Stream, the last major energy pipeline bringing Russian gas to Europe”.

Radev’s winning message has been a “cocktail of anti-corruption pledges, Euro-scepticism and pledges to rebuild ties with Moscow, spooking some EU and Nato diplomats”, said the Financial Times. But “while his outreach to Russia may be symbolically valuable to the Kremlin, it is likely to be far less consequential in practice” than the recently deposed Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who “routinely vetoed EU decisions in order to benefit Moscow”.

“Unlike in Hungary the political cleavage here between the anti-corruption platform and the anti-Russia platform is wide, so those two messages won’t reinforce each other in quite the same seismic way,” said Vessela Tcherneva, from the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“Maintaining a strategic ambiguity towards Russia and the EU” while focusing on his anti-corruption message helped Radev secure an absolute majority, winning votes from both the far-right and progressives, said The Guardian. This may bring the country “political stability” but “leave it walking a tightrope on EU issues”.

Russian commanders are charging “up to £30,000 to spare soldiers from the front lines in Ukraine”, said The Telegraph. Recruits unwilling or unable to pay are “reset” – a “euphemism for sending them to their deaths” in large-scale offensives with astronomical casualty rates.

Wounded soldiers must “pay thousands” to be declared unfit for active service, said PBS. Those who do not are “forced to literally limp into battle”. Seth Jones, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that injured soldiers, sometimes on crutches, are being “used as bait” to “draw fire” from hidden Ukrainian artillery.

Estimates put the number of Russian casualties in the war against Ukraine since 2022 at around 1.2 million, according to the CSIS. Ukrainian officials have also claimed that in March Russia suffered its highest number of losses – more than 35,000 killed or seriously wounded – since the launch of Ukraine’s “Army of Drones” programme last year, said the UK Defence Journal.

‘System of extortion’

“Corruption and slave labour have long been features of the Russian and Soviet armies,” said The Economist. Soldiers are not just seen as “grunts” – serving as “cannon fodder” for their superiors – but more troublingly as a “source of enrichment”.

There is a “system of extortion and punishment” in the Russian ranks, where infantry soldiers must “buy their own” military gear. Other collections begin “under the pretext of raising money for drones, equipment or food”, but payments are expected to continue. “Soldiers who refuse to pay may be thrown into dug-out pits for torture.”

In extreme cases, sources have reported that commanders “requisition troops’ bank cards and PIN codes” before sending them into battle. “The dead are declared missing, and commanders withdraw the money they earned from their bank accounts”. As one soldier was told by a new commanding officer, survival is “not a matter of luck, but of ability to pay”.

In the Russian military, “men learn quickly to fear their commanders more than their foe”, said PBS. Videos appear on social media depicting the “horrific punishments” faced by soldiers if they fail to pay up, with reports of some “being locked in cages, electrocuted and sexually assaulted”. According to the independent Russian station Radio Echo, nearly 12,000 complaints were filed over six months last year, accusing commanders of “corruption and violence towards their own men”.

‘Public resentment’

The Russian military recruitment drive has “poured blood and money into the system, resulting in a vast battlefield economy”, said The Economist. The front line has become a “marketplace where everything has a price: drones, medals, home leave and life itself”.

The problem is widespread, said The New York Times. In the last two years, “at least 12 high-ranking Russian military officials and generals, as well as dozens of lower-ranking officers, have been indicted on corruption charges”.

Most recently, Lieutenant Colonel Konstantin Frolov – known as “Executioner” – has been put on trial in a military court, facing charges of fraud, bribery and weapons trafficking. He is accused by the Investigative Committee (Russia’s equivalent of the FBI) of leading a scheme where “more than 30 soldiers and medics” in his regiment “used weapons to shoot themselves in order to obtain payouts for battlefield injuries”. The plot reportedly defrauded the army of “200 million rubles, or $2.6 million”.

This case in particular has “fed public resentment of the economic and social privileges” of high-ranking officials, who are accused of perpetuating the war “only for the money”.

What happened

The U.S. is allowing a sanctioned Russian “shadow fleet” tanker to deliver oil to Cuba, President Donald Trump said Sunday, effectively breaking his de facto blockade. “If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem with that, whether it’s Russia or not,” he told reporters on Air Force One.

Who said what

Trump’s administration has gone after Cuba “more aggressively than any U.S. government in recent history,” The Associated Press said. The oil blockade was “an effort to force regime change,” but it has had “devastating effects” on civilians, “leaving many desperate.” The delivery of the roughly 730,000 barrels of oil on the Anatoly Kolodkin tanker will “reduce pressure” on Havana as it faces “a looming economic collapse,” The New York Times said. It was “unclear why the White House” is allowing the tanker to reach the island, but the decision “avoids a potential thorny confrontation with Russia just off the coast of Florida.”

Trump’s Cabinet was “limited in what it could legally do to stop the tanker,” The Washington Post said. “Seizing or boarding a Russian vessel while simultaneously managing an active military conflict in Iran” would also “pour fuel on already volatile energy markets,” Brett Erickson with Obsidian Risk Advisors told the Post.

What next?

The Anatoly Kolodkin was expected to dock in Cuba by Monday morning. Erickson told Reuters that the “two and a half weeks of oil” on the Kolodkin “can be extended to about a month in total.” The 730,000 barrels “buys them time” in Havana, University of Texas oil expert Jorge Piñón told the Times. “But this is not a magic wand.”

What happened

The Justice Department has agreed to pay Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, about $1.2 million to settle Flynn’s claims he was wrongfully prosecuted for his role in the 2016 Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, according to court papers filed Wednesday, which didn’t disclose the settlement amount, and news organizations. The Justice Department and Flynn both “hailed the agreement in separate statements, hinting at the cooperative nature of the settlement,” The New York Times said.

Who said what

The settlement is the “latest turn in the long-running legal saga involving Flynn,” The Associated Press said. He twice pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia’s U.S. ambassador on Trump’s behalf, but then tried to withdraw his plea. Trump ended that case by pardoning Flynn in November 2020, after losing his reelection bid, and Flynn filed a $50 million malicious prosecution claim in 2023. A federal judge dismissed that suit in 2024, but Trump’s Justice Department revived it and entered settlement talks last summer.

The payout will “likely fuel questions as to whether Flynn received a favorable outcome due to his continued vocal support for President Trump,” ABC News said. It was an “extraordinary example,” the Times said, of how the Trump Justice Department “has sought to use the legal system to punish the president’s enemies and reward his allies and supporters” while trying to “erase the effect of some of the prominent criminal cases” against him and them.

What next?

Trump has demanded that the Justice Department pay him $230 million for the two prosecutions he faced before winning re-election in 2024. His administration has “also taken steps to undo criminal convictions the government had secured against Stephen K. Bannon and Peter Navarro,” The Washington Post said.

“Just a few weeks ago, Nato marked the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with fresh pledges of solidarity and assistance,” said The Daily Telegraph. Today, that war “risks becoming the forgotten conflict”.

Advanced US-made weapons that Kyiv's allies could have bought to help it deflect Russian attacks are being fired at cheap Iranian drones instead – depleting supplies that could take years to restock. European leaders are distracted by threats to their allies in the Gulf region, and the potential shocks to their economies.

Feeding the war machine

To cap Kyiv's dismay, Donald Trump has suspended sanctions on Russian oil, said the Daily Mail. The deal – apparently struck during an hour-long call with Vladimir Putin – should “curb rising prices” on US forecourts, but at what cost to Europe's security? It was recently reported that Moscow might be forced to slash its non-military spending by 10%, owing to the spiralling cost of its war in Ukraine and the impact of sanctions. Now it can feed its “bloody war machine” with billions in extra oil revenues instead.

The war presents “political opportunities” for Russia too, said Mark Galeotti in The Sunday Times. Trump's broadsides against Keir Starmer, and Madrid's fury at Berlin for not backing it in the face of his attacks, have great propaganda value. The Kremlin is also looking at this as a case study for just how united Europe is likely to be against future challenges, “especially as America pivots away”. Still, any glee in Moscow will have been tempered by Washington's decision to strike Iran while nuclear talks were ongoing. This caught Moscow off-guard, and dented its confidence in its ability to read the US president.

‘Extremely triggered’

Tehran is not just an ally of Moscow, said Cathy Young on The Bulwark. It has also been a role model for it – showing the possibility of surviving both Western sanctions and popular discontent. Now the Americans have killed Ayatollah Khamenei, and Putin has again been exposed as unable, or unwilling, to help an ally in trouble – a humiliating outcome for a man who liked to pose as the “leader of global resistance to Western hegemony”.

Events in Iran may shake Putin in other ways, too: he is said to be “extremely triggered” by the assassinations of dictators elsewhere. And while Ukraine being pushed down the agenda would be a win for him, this war could also leave Trump too busy to force Kyiv into a bad peace deal with Russia. Similarly, if the war drags on, it might boost Putin, or cost the Republicans the midterms, and so empower Kyiv's allies in Washington. In the fog of war, future-gazing is a mug's game.

Even though it has long been known that Russia engages in censorship of its citizens, recent experiments in Moscow are raising fears that the Russian government is augmenting its information blockade. This new era of censorship, which involves blacking out internet communications other than approved websites, has raised concerns in Russia and among outside observers.

‘Severely limit what people can see’

Throughout March, people in Moscow have “found themselves without connectivity on their phones” due to internet outages created by the Kremlin, said NBC News. These blackouts have “disrupted the daily lives of millions of residents and hit businesses that rely on mobile internet,” though the Russian government has repeatedly said this is being done in the name of security due to threats from the war in Ukraine.

Certain “websites and apps, including government portals and banking services, may remain accessible through ‘whitelists,’” said Business Insider, as the Kremlin may allow “certain services to keep operating even while broader internet access is restricted.” Beyond government portals, some of the sites on these Russian whitelists may also include “state media outlets and Russian homegrown apps such as Max, a messaging platform controlled by the government,” said The Wall Street Journal.

This effort to control internet access is not new: Russia has been “honing and testing similar infrastructure for the past year,” said the Journal. Many officials believe these rolling blackouts will “likely be in place until the end of the war.” This comes as Russians are already “contending with rising inflation and economic strain more than four years into the war in Ukraine.”

‘Massive headache’

As the Kremlin continues to clamp down harder, many Russians, particularly those in the workforce, say they are having trouble going about their lives. The outages are a “massive headache,” Dmitry, a consultant in Moscow, said to The Guardian. “I’m having trouble ordering a taxi, sending work emails or even just messaging my family.” The blackouts are also “slamming businesses that rely on cellphone internet,” said The Associated Press.

Muscovites who run “cafes, restaurants and shops that rely on mobile internet have suffered massive losses as customers have been unable to pay for the services,” said the AP. Many of the city’s ATMs and parking meters that “rely on cellphone internet stopped working,” further complicating Moscow life. Businesses in the city “lost between 3 and 5 billion rubles [$38 million to $63 million] in five days of shutdowns.” However, businesses with “broadband access and residents with broadband at home have not been affected.”

Many are turning to more low-tech options, with Russians buying old-school technology like walkie-talkies and pagers. Sales of walkie-talkies “increased by 27%, sales of pagers for communication with clients and staff by 73%, and landline telephones by about a quarter,” said Russian news outlet RBC. Muscovites are also looking for less high-tech ways to navigate the area. “Sales of road maps increased by 170% in physical units, foldable maps by 70% and Moscow maps by 20%.”

‘The US World Cup is facing two crises: a financial mess — and ICE.’

Nellie Pou at The Guardian

The “final match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be played in East Rutherford, New Jersey,” but if the U.S. “doesn’t get its act together, we risk turning a generational opportunity into an international embarrassment,” says Nellie Pou. The “first problem is money.” Every “day of delay makes an already complex logistical challenge harder.” The games “also face a second threat: ICE.” When an “immigration enforcement agency signals it may be at our stadiums and public events, it raises legitimate fears.”

Read more

‘Ballet isn’t dead, but Timothée Chalamet might have a point’

Chloe Angyal at Time

Timothée Chalamet recently “spoke about the vibrancy of cinema,” and “went on to claim that ‘no one cares’ about ballet or opera,” says Chloe Angyal. To many, “Chalamet sounded like an ignorant bully.” Ballet is “too often the butt of the joke,” often relying on the “shared assumption that ballet is feminine, frivolous and a little gay.” While Chalamet “did not make such insults himself, his comments fit into this broader context of disparagement and dismissal.” In the US, “ballet is starved for state resources, which reflects a widespread lack of respect.”

Read more

‘Trump wants the Kurds to wage war in Iran. They should beware.’

Stephen Kinzer at The Boston Globe

As the “war against Iran intensifies, an old Middle East impulse has suddenly reemerged: Arm the Kurds,” says Stephen Kinzer. For “decades, the United States has used Kurdish militias as proxies.” Now President Donald Trump “wants them to enter Iran and try to set off an ethnic uprising. They should beware.” Even “with American air support, the few thousand Iranian Kurds who might launch an insurgency inside their country would have no realistic chance to advance against Iran’s military.”

Read more

‘Russia’s use of poison: a reality Europe has been slow to confront.’

Marie Jégo at Le Monde

Eliminating opponents “by poisoning them is embedded in the DNA of Russian power,” says Marie Jégo. The “advantage of poison is that it is not easily detected.” The “fact that Russia, a signatory to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, could so brazenly use poisons is a reality Europe has been slow to address.” It was “not until 2023 that Moscow lost its seat on the organization's executive council and 2026 before the criminal state was called out.”

Read more

Russia’s plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space could be “catastrophic”, a Canadian military leader has warned on Ukrinform.

Moscow’s reported ambitions “appear quite alarming”, said Brigadier General Christopher Horner, commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Frying electronics 

Satellite warfare has been a threat for some years and the latest “devastating” development is the “possibility of Russia detonating a nuclear weapon in space”, said the Daily Mail.

In 2024 the US believed the Kremlin was developing an “anti-satellite missile tipped with a nuclear warhead for a potential surprise attack in low orbit”. Simulated blast tests by nuclear experts at the Pentagon have suggested that such an attack would destroy thousands of Western satellites.

Satellite networks are “critical to everything from banks synchronising their transactions to navigation tasks that ranged from guiding planes and ships to ensuring a pizza delivery driver finds the right address”.

An anti-satellite nuke would “combine a physical attack that would ripple outwards, destroying more satellites”, with the nuclear component being “used to fry their electronics”, said The Associated Press.

It could “render low-Earth orbit unusable for satellites for as long as a year”, said Republican member of Congress Mike Turner, and the effects would be “devastating”. The US and its allies could be “vulnerable to economic upheaval” and “even a nuclear attack”. The scenario is “the Cuban Missile crisis in space”, said Turner.

Satellite killers

If Russia were to deploy such a “satellite-killing weapon”, it would violate the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, The New York Times said in 2024. This kind of space weaponisation from Russia and China is “one of the primary reasons” the US Space Force was established, said AP.

Now countries are “scrambling to create their own rocket and space programmes to exploit commercial prospects and ensure they aren’t dependent on foreign satellites”, said Fortune.

The US Space Force was launched in 2019 to protect US interests in space and to defend its satellites from attacks by enemies. It’s “far smaller” than the US Army, Navy or Air Force, but it’s “growing”.

Meanwhile, Horner warned that Canada doesn’t have the “capability” to disable a potential Russian nuclear bomb in space. So “my only advice as a military officer is to put pressure” on Moscow so that they don’t follow through with the plan, because that would be an “incredibly terrible thing”.

“Vladimir Putin has not achieved his goals,” said a defiant Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a televised address marking the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The February 2022 invasion was meant to be a “short and successful military operation” that would “force Kyiv back into Moscow’s orbit” and “overturn the entire post-Cold War security architecture in Europe”, said the BBC’s Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg. “It didn’t go to plan”, leaving Russia with an ever-mounting cost.

What did the commentators say?

As the conflict enters its fifth year, Russian victory seems as far away as ever and it has little to show for its estimated 1.2 million casualties, according to Seth G. Jones and Riley McCabe at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. The average pace of Russia’s progress has sometimes been as little as 15 metres per day, “slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century”.

Russia’s economy is finally starting to teeter. It faces a huge shortfall in oil revenues and has been forced to sell gold reserves to cover its budget deficit.

The West has always believed that domestic discontent as a result of the ongoing sanctions would “persuade Putin to abandon the war”, said Peter Rutland and Elizaveta Gaufman on The Conversation. This, in turn, was “based on the assumption that the legitimacy of Putinism rests on a social contract” that offers Russians stability and income in exchange for loyalty.

But this approach “tends to downplay the role of ideology”, which has been successfully exploited by the Kremlin to spin the war as an existential threat and maintain support for the president, according to data from Statista.

This narrative has also been deployed externally, towards Russia’s opponents. The idea emanating from the Kremlin that Ukraine’s front line faces “imminent collapse” is “an effort to coerce the West and Ukraine into capitulating to Russian demands that Russia cannot secure itself militarily”, said the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. This is a “false narrative”.

The West should “stop buying into Moscow’s bluff that Russia is invincible” and “use the Kremlin’s weaknesses and double down on its support for Ukraine to bring about real negotiations to end the war”, said Jana Kobzova and Leo Litra for the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The notion that ‘time is on the Russian side’ betrays a lack of strategic patience and, even more importantly, squandered opportunities to exploit Moscow’s growing structural vulnerabilities.”

What next?

“Standard economic theory suggests that deteriorating conditions should push the Kremlin towards negotiations on ending the war,” said The Economist. “A rational actor facing mounting costs seeks an exit.”

Yet there is little sign that Putin has any intention of yielding on his push for the “capitulation” of Ukraine, Russian political scientist Tatiana Stanovaya told The I Paper. If no peace deal can be struck, the war could even “escalate further”, with the possible involvement of China a “growing factor”, as well as fears of a “new nuclear race”, said The i Paper.

Russia can “probably continue waging war for the foreseeable future”, said The Economist, but every additional year “raises systemic risk: of fiscal crisis, of institutional breakdown, of damage so severe that no post-war policy can repair it”.

So the question for Western allies is “what kind of Russia will emerge” when its appetite for war finally fades, “and whether anyone has a plan for what comes next”.

Moscow is calling it “necro-propaganda” but intelligence services and chemical weapons experts from five European countries are united in their verdict: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was killed by a rare toxin found in some poison dart frogs.

Traces of epibatidine, a neurotoxin 200 times more potent than morphine, were found in samples taken from Navalny’s body after he died, two years ago, in a Siberian penal colony. Only the Russian government had “the means, the motive and the opportunity” to use such a poison on a prisoner, said Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.

“Precise, deniable” and “grimly familiar”, said NBC, the use of poison to eliminate enemies “has become less a medieval cliché” than Russia’s current “geopolitical signature flourish”.

What is the history of Russia’s use of poison?

The Kremlin has long used rare poisons “to dispose of inconvenient people”, said The Independent. There are credible reports of a Soviet “poison programme” as far back as the 1920s. Poison was mainly used to eliminate internal opposition but, in 1978, the Western world was shocked by the London assassination of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov with a ricin-filled pellet, fired from the tip of an umbrella on Waterloo Bridge.

In recent years, Russian military and security services have been implicated in a growing number of high-profile poison attacks overseas. In 2004, Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yuschenko, running against a Russian favourite, was left permanently disfigured by a dioxin attack. In 2006, Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko died after drinking a cup of tea laced with radioactive polonium-210 in a London hotel. And, in 2018, two Russian GRU agents were implicated in the novichok attack on former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury.

Two years later, an attempt was made to kill Navalny with novichok during a flight to Moscow but he survived after his plane was diverted so he could be taken to hospital. This was, however, only a temporary reprieve for Vladimir Putin’s most vocal and effective critic.

Why is poison the Kremlin’s weapon of choice?

The advantage of toxins is “their deniability and terror”, said The Times. They send “a very clear message: ‘If you screw with us, terrible things will happen’”, a security source told the paper. Not only can the state kill but “it can do so without ever admitting it has done anything at all”.

The effects of epibatidine, the toxin said to be used in Navalny’s fatal poisoning, are “devastating’, said Sky News. It will cause “paralysis, respiratory arrest and an agonising death”. If the Kremlin “did choose to use such an exotic substance to silence a critic, it demonstrates an unusual level of ruthlessness”.

Will there be any consequences for Russia?

A group of European ministers have reported the results of their lab tests on the Navalny samples to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Russia claims “Western fabulists” are using a Russian citizen’s death to make “strident accusations” of assassination with “zero evidence”.

The “extraordinary announcement” about the frog poison at an international security conference in Munich was deliberately co-ordinated by the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands “to grab global headlines in much the same way as” Navalny's “actual death did”, said Sky News. “The intent was to make sure perpetrators cannot hide in the shadows.” Potential repercussions could include sanctions or even criminal prosecutions of individuals involved.

The hope is that this kind of “greater scrutiny“ will “deter the Kremlin” from poison attacks overseas. It is, “at the very least, evidence of a growing resolve amongst Nato allies” to stand up to Putin.

And, “in the short term, the main international consequence” will be “to make it impossible” for America’s European allies “to swallow any Trump peace plan for Ukraine that rewards Putin”, said The Independent. “Poison, it turns out, can be a boomerang.”

For thousands of years, humans have trained pigeons to race, deliver messages and “spy behind enemy lines”, said Bloomberg. “What would happen if people could bypass the training and steer their bird brains instead?”

A Russian neurotechnology company linked to Vladimir Putin’s daughter is claiming to do just that, said The Times. Scientists at Neiry have reportedly been implanting computer chips into the birds’ brains and strapping video cameras to their chests, trying to transform them into “living drones”.

There has been “no independent scientific verification” of the company’s claims – but in theory, the birds could be “adapted for military surveillance”.

Bio-drones

Under the project, codenamed PJN-1, neural chips are reportedly implanted into the birds’ brains, with flight paths controlled by remote operators. The Moscow-based company claims the birds can be steered by “stimulating their brains with electrodes to make them turn left or right”, said the paper.

Pigeons outperform traditional drones because animals “do not require battery swaps or frequent landings”, according to Neiry. They can fly up to 400km a day without a break, and can reach areas where drones would be restricted, the company says.

“Our current focus is pigeons, but different species may be used depending on the environment or payload,” said Alexander Panov, founder and chief executive. “For transporting heavier payloads we plan to use ravens.”

And there are other advantages to these bird-brained “bio-drones”, said Bloomberg. Drones may be “easier to control, can carry bigger loads and don’t need to eat or poop”. But birds are better suited to covert surveillance. A person is far more likely to notice a drone overhead than “one more pigeon flapping around”.

Remote-controlled assassins?

There’s plenty of precedent in attempts to control the minds of animals for military purposes. During the Cold War, the CIA tried to turn dogs into “remote-controlled canine assassins”, said The Times. It also inserted a microphone into a cat’s ear and a radio transmitter into its skull, “hoping to use it as a device to spy” on the Soviets.

Several countries, including China and the US, have also explored controlling birds through neural implants. Last year Chinese scientists “created cyborg bees” with brain controllers to direct their flight, said The Telegraph. And in January, Neiry unveiled “what it claimed was the world’s first rat connected to AI, allowing it to access online information and answer questions via a keyboard”.

Neiry says the birds are intended for peaceful purposes, to help with search and rescue operations and to monitor infrastructure. “We make every effort to ensure that our bio-drones are used exclusively for civilian purposes, with no concealed or secondary use,” the company said in a statement.

But experts warn the technology could “easily be adapted for military use”, said the paper. Russia already sends trained dolphins to guard its Black Sea naval base, and has reportedly “mounted Starlink terminals on horses to extend internet coverage along the front line”.

An investigation by T-Invariant, an independent anti-war outlet, found that Neiry had received about one billion roubles (almost £10 million) in funding, “much of it from Kremlin-linked sources”. The company has received funding “on a scale Russian neuroscience has never seen”, one neurologist told the outlet.

Brain implant technology has also advanced rapidly in recent years. Several companies are developing neural chips for humans to treat diseases and improve cognitive capabilities. Plus Russia has been expanding its drone capabilities in the war against Ukraine – a war keenly supported by Panov. He has “lamented what he called the ‘gentle style’ of Russia’s so-called ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine”, said The Telegraph. He has also described his “ultimate ambition” of creating the next human species after Homo sapiens: so-called Homo superior.

What happened

The U.S. on Thursday said it had agreed with Moscow to restart high-level military-to-military dialogue that was suspended shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The thawing of bilateral ties grew out of talks in Abu Dhabi on ending the war. Thursday also marked the end of New START, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia.

Who said what

The U.S. and Russian militaries have maintained an emergency deconfliction line throughout Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, but “consistent military-to-military contact” is an “important factor in global stability and peace,” U.S. European Command said in a statement. The “resumption of regular dialogue” will also “enable Moscow to hold talks with Washington on security topics outside of the Ukraine conflict,” The Washington Post said.

The lapse of New START removes “last major guardrail constraining the nuclear arsenals of the two countries that together hold some 85% of the world’s warheads,” Axios said. U.S. and Russian envoys in Abu Dhabi had been “closing in on a deal to continue to observe” the treaty, but President Donald Trump cast “doubt on any formal extension.” Instead of “extending” New START, he said Thursday on social media, we should “work on a new, improved and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.”

What next?

Trump’s post “said nothing about Vladimir Putin’s offer to hold American and Russian arsenals at current levels temporarily, leaving open the possibility of a renewed arms race,” The New York Times said.

After three decades of checking the global proliferation of nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) has come to its inevitable end. And that demise is sparking questions about what might fill the void the treaty leaves behind.

A continuation of earlier mutual arms control pacts, the New START Treaty represented the latest in more than half a century of U.S.-Russian cooperation to stem the tide of weapons of mass destruction — and its Thursday expiration marks the last of such endeavors. With no concrete plans for a similar nonproliferation pact to replace it, is the world now on the cusp of a Cold War-style atomic arms race?

What did the commentators say?

The dissolution of the New START Treaty, which regulated the amount of nuclear weapon-capable hardware deployed by both nations, comes at an “especially fraught time,” said Politico. Both Russia and China have been “expanding” their nuclear arsenals recently, and the Defense Department has launched a “series of internal meetings” to prepare for a “post-New START world.”

President Donald Trump, for his part, has “indicated that he would like a new deal” but said he “wanted it to include China.” But Chinese officials, said The New York Times, have “made clear they are not interested.” Broadly then, the treaty’s end signifies more than an expiration date, as multiple countries begin testing “new types and configurations of nuclear weapons” few could have envisioned when the Senate narrowly “ratified the New START treaty in 2010.”

Trump’s insistence that China be included in future antiproliferation treaties was “almost certainly a poison pill” intended to “stop any progress on renewing the existing treaty,” said The Atlantic. However hard two-party arms negotiations may be to achieve, “multilateral arms treaties are exponentially more difficult.” Complicating the situation further, Trump, in his second term, is surrounded by people who oppose most treaties as “annoying limitations on American power.”

The treaty’s end should “alarm everyone,” said Russian politician and former President Dmitry Medvedev, one of the original signatories to the 2010 deal. It is a “sobering comment” from someone whose “recent rhetoric has included nuclear threats,” said the BBC. Not only is the treaty’s expiration a “significant break in more than five decades of bilateral nuclear arms control,” said Chatham House, but by signaling a “move away from nuclear restraint,” the lapse ultimately makes the world a “more dangerous place.”

What next?

The loss of the New START Treaty is not only an end to “numeric limits” of nuclear arms but halts the “predictable flow of notifications, data exchanges, on-site inspections and other transparency mechanisms that reduced uncertainty and helped sustain predictability,” said Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies Professor Katarzyna Zysk to The Barents Observer. Absent that regularity, Russia will have to “plan against a U.S. force posture that is less observed,” leading to a “higher degree of uncertainty.”

The implicit message of allowing the treaty to lapse will be “received most clearly in Beijing,” said The Diplomat. While China’s nuclear arsenal is small in comparison to those amassed by the U.S. and Russia, the treaty’s end signals that “negotiated restraint among major powers is temporary and expendable.” Rather than curbing China’s atomic ambitions, the change only reinforces the “case for accelerating it in anticipation of a world without limits.”

The treaty’s end has also “sparked debate” among European leadership over “how to possibly shape” the continent’s nuclear defenses, said DW. In one outcome under consideration, the nuclear powers of France and the U.K. “extend their protection to other nations, such as Germany.”

If the White House thinks it “will be easy” to negotiate a “new ‘better’ treaty” now that this one has expired, “they are mistaken,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, the director of military analysis at the arms control advocacy group Defense Priorities, at The Guardian. Trump may be the ultimate dealmaker,” but when it comes to nuclear proliferation, he would have been “better off hanging on to the agreement” he let lapse before “trying to get a better one.”

Delegations from the US, Ukraine and Russia have met together for the first time since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago, buoying hopes of a peace deal despite continued sticking points over territory.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters that talks overnight between Vladimir Putin and the US had been “substantive, constructive and very frank”, ahead of the two-day summit in Abu Dhabi. But despite the positive noises, Russia, which occupies about 20% of Ukraine, “is pushing for full control of the country’s eastern Donbas region as part of a deal”, something Kyiv has warned against, claiming that “ceding ground would embolden Moscow”, said The Times.

What did the commentators say?

US envoy Steve Witkoff said negotiations were “down to one issue”, suggesting an agreement was perhaps within reach. “I think we’ve got it down to one issue, and we have discussed iterations of that issue, and that means it’s solvable,” he said.

While Donald Trump and his colleagues “appear to believe Putin is ready and willing to agree to a ceasefire”, said CNBC, Ukraine remains sceptical, believing “Russia’s manpower advantage on the battlefield and incremental advances means it is willing to continue the war and is playing for time by drawing out talks”. Coupled with this “it isn’t clear that the meetings on Ukraine this week come with any new proposals beyond those that have already been rejected by Russia”, said Politico’s Felicia Schwartz.

From Ukraine’s perspective, “these first, trilateral talks are a kind of crunch time”, said Sarah Rainsford, the BBC’s Eastern Europe correspondent. “The focus will be US security guarantees for Ukraine – and, as Volodymyr Zelenskyy puts it, it’s a chance to see whether Moscow is really serious about peace or just playing games.”

The crux of that issue is that for Putin “deception is the default setting”, said The Hill’s Andrew Chakhoyan. “He does not negotiate – he manipulates.” As former Ukrainian commander Valerii Zaluzhnyi wrote in the New York Post: “Russia’s negotiators, like its generals, fight to exhaust, confuse and divide. Their aim is not peace but delay; not compromise in pursuit of accord but conquest through deception.”

“It feels like we've been here before: highly anticipated high-profile summits that change little on the ground in Ukraine,” said Sky News’s Sally Lockwood. “And yet – this time feels different.” The speed at which all three sides agreed to meet in the UAE means there is “a sense that neither side would have shown up without at least contemplating a compromise they might be willing to accept”.

What next?

The timing of these talks “is especially significant as Ukraine faces its harshest winter of the war, with widespread power outages caused by Russian strikes on energy infrastructure”, said Modern Diplomacy. But while these conditions “add urgency to negotiations” they also “fuel Ukrainian scepticism about Russia’s stated interest in peace”.

Along with the trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi, separate economic discussions between Moscow and Washington are also planned, signalling parallel diplomatic tracks.

It’s there where the US can really turn the screw. “The first step to defeating Russian cognitive warfare is simple: stop playing by Russia’s dirty rules,” said The Hill’s Chakhoyan. “Stop accepting Putin’s framing.” Putin lies “because his only path to victory runs through Washington’s self-deterrence and Europe’s indecisiveness. The greatest lie of all is that we have no choice but to accept it.”

Nato is mulling a joint operation to defend the Arctic from future Russian and Chinese aggression – and to neutralise US ambition.

Britain, Germany and France have discussed a possible “Arctic Sentry” mission, echoing two similar Nato initiatives launched last year: Baltic Sentry (in response to underseas cable sabotage) and Eastern Sentry (following Russian drone incursions). This would be in addition to Denmark’s “Operation Arctic Endurance” in Nuuk where Britain, Canada and 10 other European nations have already sent a handful of troops to join that reconnaissance force in the Greenland capital.

The hope is to placate Donald Trump, who has repeatedly used claims of a growing threat of Russian and Chinese ships to justify his desire to seize Greenland. But whether a Nato mission could feasibly protect the mineral-rich Arctic – or whether the threat is as severe as the president claims – is a different question altogether.

What did the commentators say?

Nato should “double down” on Arctic security and “do what we’ve done in other areas”, said Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. The Arctic is “the gateway for Russia’s Northern Fleet to be able to threaten” the UK, Europe, the US and Canada, she told the BBC while visiting British forces in northern Norway. “Transatlantic security depends on our Arctic security.”

She envisages the mission as covering “the high north”, including Greenland, Iceland, Finland and the increasingly busy shipping lanes. It would look like “coordinated exercises, operations and intelligence sharing”, she said, similar to the ongoing Baltic and Eastern Sentry missions.

Those are “considered big successes”, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). While the waters around Greenland “aren’t full of Russian and Chinese ships right now, that could change as Arctic ice melts and new sea lanes open up”.

Russian and Chinese vessels aren’t out there “studying the seals and the polar bears”, said Nato’s supreme allied commander in Europe, Alexus Grynkewich. But there are “many practical obstacles” to an Arctic Sentry operation, said RFE/RL. Nato has only about 40 ice-breaker vessels in total – fewer than Russia. Hundreds of such ships would be needed “to cover such a vast area”. Apart from Nordic countries and Canada, there are few troops with experience of operating “in harsh Arctic conditions”.

The Baltic Sentry and Eastern Sentry were also “formulated to tackle specific threats”, said The Telegraph. In the case of Greenland, the threats “are not as clear-cut”. Germany has “floated the idea of sending at least 5,000 troops” to Greenland, effectively a “tripwire” to stall a Russian or Chinese invasion.

But that wouldn’t “significantly contribute to regional security”, because any threat to Greenland is “unlikely to be a ground invasion”. Mass deployment would also “suck vast resources away from other priorities”, such as a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine or protecting Nato’s eastern flank from Russia. It “would simply be seen as a costly public relations project” designed to placate Trump. He “appears obsessed with the purported presence of Russian and Chinese ships” near the island. Security experts do not agree.

Indeed, there’s “hardly any military activity” by Russia and China in Greenland, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, told Politico.

Seven of the eight Arctic countries that are Nato members (Russia is the eighth) are cooperating more and more; the fact that other countries are “becoming more interested is a good thing”, Eide said. But the focus is “still more on Russia’s live threat to the European high north than a future threat to Greenland”.

What next?

One potential Arctic Sentry scenario could be “Europeans handling air and sea surveillance” of what is known as the GIUK gap – the area between Greenland and Ireland/the UK – while the US “increases its troop presence in Greenland”, said RFE/RL. The 1951 treaty between the US and Denmark that allows unlimited US presence on the island is still valid. Denmark would have to consent, but that is “likely to be given”.

The EU is also considering using a rearmament scheme to build a continental ice-breaker to deploy to the region alongside Nato warships, according to The Telegraph. But the most likely Arctic Sentry scenario would “focus on the intelligence aspect of security”, which is seen as “a vital way of securing the Arctic”.

Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is “expected to put some security proposals” to Trump: a “toolbox” of ideas on how European nations could protect Greenland. Talks on Arctic Sentry are “at the earliest stages of planning”, but hopefully “at least one of the proposals will be enough” to deter Trump.

Today, an estimated 900 to 1,500 tankers – perhaps one in five in the world – are part of the global “shadow fleet”, defined by the International Maritime Organisation as “ships that are engaged in illegal operations for the purposes of circumventing sanctions, evading compliance with safety or environmental regulations, avoiding insurance costs or engaging in other illegal activities”.

While such ships have long been used to transport oil from sanction-hit nations such as Venezuela and Iran, their numbers expanded rapidly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, when Moscow built up a clandestine network of hundreds of vessels. About half of the world’s shadow fleet vessels transport Russian oil; about 20% carry Iranian oil; Venezuela is the next biggest market. The shadow fleet transported some 3.7 billion barrels of oil in 2025, accounting for 6% to 7% of annual global crude-oil flows, according to the trade intelligence analyst Kpler.

How did Russia build up its fleet?

US, G7 and EU restrictions on Russian oil exports were introduced in December 2022, notably in the form of a price cap on Russian crude (initially set at $60 per barrel) designed to hit Russia’s economy while ensuring that the sanctions wouldn’t raise global oil prices. This banned Western shipping services, insurance and brokerage for Russian oil exports sold at any price above that cap; until this point Russia was highly dependent on all three.

In their place, tankers approaching their end of life were purchased by Russia, or by intermediaries, often using shell companies in opaque jurisdictions. In a period of 12 months, Greek owners sold 127 vessels worth $4 billion. Shipping specialists based in London helped facilitate the sales. These ships have been used to move Russian oil to Asia, primarily China and India, while preventing Asian buyers from being hit with Western sanctions. The oil is usually sold at a price above the price cap (now $47.60 per barrel) but below the going market rate (roughly $58-$62).

How do ships evade detection?

Ownership is disguised. The vessels often change their names, and their registrations. They are usually registered under flags of convenience (in states such as Gabon, Cameroon, or the Cook Islands, which maintain open ship registries with minimal oversight) or under false flags. The ships frequently turn off their tracking systems to “go dark”, or they digitally manipulate their location data. Oil can be pumped between vessels in remote areas of open ocean far from typical trading routes. This makes it difficult for monitoring bodies to trace the cargo back to Russia. And because Western insurers are forbidden from insuring them, tankers often operate with dubious Russian insurance, or no insurance at all.

What dangers do the ships pose?

They provide an economic lifeline to Putin’s Russia, allowing it to continue selling oil at near-market prices and fund its war effort. It is estimated that some 70% of Russia’s seaborne crude exports use the shadow fleet. In addition, because most shadow tankers are old, cheaply maintained, inadequately insured, and sometimes turn off their tracking systems, they raise the risk of accidents and spills. The environmental impact could potentially be huge: many tankers carry at least a million barrels of crude. If one of these “floating rust buckets” causes a billion-dollar oil spill, says Michelle Wiese Bockmann – an intelligence analyst at Windward AI – “good luck with trying to find somebody responsible to pick up any cost”: the costs will fall on the affected coastal state. Furthermore, Russia seems to have “weaponised” parts of its shadow fleet.

How have they been weaponised?

Some tankers have been implicated in damage to key infrastructure – perhaps because of poor seamanship, but potentially owing to deliberate acts of sabotage. In late December, Finnish police detained a cargo vessel, the Fitburg, which was sailing from St Petersburg to Haifa in Israel, and was accused of damaging an undersea telecoms cable in the Baltic by dragging its anchor over it. The Boracay, a Russia-linked ship, is suspected of having launched the drones that overflew two airports in Denmark (Copenhagen and Aalborg) last September, closing both down.

What can be done?

The US, the UK and EU can impose sanctions on specific vessels and on companies that deal with them. These mean that the ships can’t be insured in these jurisdictions, and that service and port bans can be imposed. However, it’s a game of “whack-a-mole”: the ships are usually renamed and reflagged. Besides, it doesn’t stop them sailing. Freedom of navigation is a core principle of international law, and the appetite of coastal countries to intervene – risking Russia’s wrath – is limited. A Russian jet was sent to escort one tanker challenged by Estonian forces last May. However, recent developments are making it harder for the shadow fleet.

And what are those?

Since December, six Russian shadow vessels appear to have been attacked by the Ukrainians, using naval drones – mostly in the Black Sea, but in one case even in the Mediterranean, off Libya. The ships were all disabled but not sunk. The second development is that the US has shown a willingness to seize all shadow shipping moving to and from Venezuela. More than 40 shadow fleet vessels involved in trade with Venezuela have been reflagged to Russia in the past six months, in an apparent attempt to gain Kremlin protection from American seizure. The Marinera, previously sailing under a false Guyanese flag, changed both name and flag while fleeing Venezuela, but that failed to stop US forces from seizing it. Four other vessels, including the M/T Sophia, also reflagged as Russian, have been seized. The UK has hinted that it too might confiscate sanctioned vessels.

What happened

The U.S. military and Coast Guard on Wednesday seized two oil tankers in separate operations aimed at controlling the flow of oil out of Venezuela. U.S. special forces boarded the Marinera near Iceland after a weekslong chase across the Atlantic that included the tanker changing its name from Bella 1 and its flag from Guyana to Russia. The U.S. also commandeered another “shadow fleet” tanker, the Sophia, in the Caribbean Sea, alleging unspecified “illicit activities.”

Who said what

The seizure of the Marinera drew condemnation from China, the main customer for Venezuela’s sanctioned oil, and Russia, which had added the empty tanker to its Maritime Register of Shipping after the Coast Guard started pursuing it in December. “Adding to the stakes,” The Wall Street Journal said, a “Russian navy ship and submarine began escorting the ship” days ago.

The Trump administration said it had legal authority to board the Marinera because it was flying a false flag. The ship’s “embrace of the Russian flag is part of a broader trend in which so-called shadow tanker vessels have sought the imprimatur of Russian protection,” The New York Times said. “For years, aged shadow vessels” have “provided a lifeline to states like Venezuela, Iran and Russia,” but it appears the “shadow fleet is stepping out of the shadows” as “Western nations have stepped up enforcement against the illicit oil trade around the globe.”

What next?

Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday that the Trump administration will allow sanctioned Venezuelan oil to flow again, but only to U.S. refineries, with the sales “done by the U.S. government and deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. government.”

The UK and France have agreed to deploy troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia, as part of a broader package of security guarantees aimed at preventing a repeat of Vladimir Putin’s invasion nearly four years ago.

After talks in Paris, Keir Starmer said both countries will, in the event of a ceasefire, “establish military hubs across Ukraine” and build protected weapon facilities “to support Ukraine’s defensive needs”.

Their agreement – along with wider security guarantees from the Coalition of the Willing – has the backing of the Trump administration. Volodymyr Zelenskyy called it a “huge step forward”. But Russia has previously rejected any idea of a “reassurance force” in Ukraine.

What did the commentators say?

The announcement from Starmer and Emmanuel Macron is “not a magic wand”, said Bel Trew in The Independent. “But it is a key moment.” France and Britain have, according to Zelenskyy, already “worked out in detail” the “force deployment”, including numbers, weapons components required.

Perhaps to reassure a wary French public, Macron said that “these are not forces that will be engaged in combat” but rather deployed “away from the contact line” to provide the necessary “reassurance”.

“This does seem at first glance to be a well-developed framework for ending the conflict in Ukraine,” said Eliot Wilson in The Spectator. But one of the most “obvious problems” is that “it is not at all clear that the UK and France have the military resources available to do what they say”.

There are “deep divisions” over increased defence spending in France and “the British army is the smallest it has been since the 1790s”. About 7,500 UK personnel are already deployed internationally and “resources for our leadership of the Nato Multinational Battlegroup in Estonia are stretched”. Given this, “where will we find ‘boots on the ground’ for Ukraine?”

Then there is the lack of public appetite for a prolonged military intervention overseas. On this, Starmer “begins from a stronger position than almost any of his counterparts” in the EU, said George Eaton in The New Statesman. UK voters are “among the most pro-Ukraine in Europe”: a recent YouGov poll of voters in six European countries found 56% of Brits support sending peacekeepers to Ukraine, compared to 40% in France and Italy and 36% in Poland. That “speaks to the strength of this consensus – albeit one yet to be tested by events”.

What next?

Of all the wider security guarantees agreed in Paris, the “binding commitment to support Ukraine in the case of future armed attack” is the one most “riddled with questions”, said Euronews. Each Coalition of the Willing government “would have to convince their parliaments, many of which are paralysed by political deadlock, to agree to an exceptionally consequential commitment”.

Then there is Putin, who has shown “no sign” that he is “willing to countenance any of this”, said Politico. This week’s potentially game-changing breakthrough does, however, “thrust the ball further into his court”.

“Overall, it feels like last year was the prologue and this year is the first chapter, one in which the storylines can really get some momentum behind them,” said Russh.

The magazine was describing horoscope forecasts for the coming year, but it could just as easily have been talking about how politics and the global economy will be shaping up in 2026.

Last year, The Week accurately predicted Donald Trump’s tariffs, the first signs of an AI stock market bubble, the rise of the far-right in the UK and Europe, and a ceasefire in Gaza. So what could 2026 have in store?

Politics

UK local and devolved elections in May are being seen as a make-or-break moment for Keir Starmer and the Labour government.

Squeezed from the right by Reform UK and from the left by a revived Green Party and the new Your Party (as well as Plaid Cymru in Wales and the SNP in Scotland), it is already looking like being a torrid night of results for Labour. Across the board, the party faces “potential collapse” and, for the first time in a century, losing control of its Welsh heartland, said Parli-Training. Were that to happen, Starmer could be forced out of Downing Street by the summer, with Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood among the favourites to replace him.

US midterm elections are also looking pretty bleak for the incumbent Republicans. With Donald Trump’s approval ratings continuing to fall, Democrats have opened up a double-digit lead in voting intention for the congressional races in November, said the Marist Poll.

“Everywhere Republicans look, they see big political trouble,” said Axios, with poll after poll showing support among swing voters down “on just about everything Republicans do, other than fighting crime and shutting the southwest border”.

In Europe, all eyes will be on the Hungarian parliamentary election in April, where Viktor Orbán’s 16-year rule could end. Elsewhere, global research firm BMI sees a “greater likelihood of victories by the centre-right/right-wing opposition” in Brazil, Colombia and Peru, “while Israel could also see a political shift”.

The opaque process to select the next UN Secretary-General also takes place over the coming year, with the successful candidate formally taking up their post on 1 January 2027. Among those already declared or expected to throw their hat in the ring is Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jacinda Ardern, former PM of New Zealand, and Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Economics

Following a bumpy year in which Trump’s tariff war played havoc with trade but markets continued to post record returns driven by AI investment, the outlook for the global economy in 2026 remains “dim”.

That is the assessment of the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook, which “makes for sobering reading”, said Love Money. Growth is forecast at 3.2% next year, with “much of the drag” stemming from “US tariffs and the wider shift towards protectionism, which is sapping international trade, undermining confidence, and rattling markets”.

Interest rates (in the US, UK and elsewhere) are expected to continue to fall, however, while fears persist that this is the year the AI bubble could finally burst. Analysis from financial services firm Wedbush, reported by Investing.com, predicts tech stocks will be “up another 20% in 2026 as this next stage of the AI Revolution hits its stride”.

“Don’t count on the AI bubble popping immediately – but don’t count it out, either,” said Mashable, with chip maker Nvidia’s next quarterly earnings report, due in January, being a key moment to watch out for.

Conflicts

Despite repeated attempts to agree an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine, fighting continues to rage in what is now Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the Second World War.

With Kremlin forces making slow but steady gains but at a terrible cost to life, the “arithmetic of attrition suggests that 2026 will bring either glacial progress, a conflict frozen from exhaustion, or some sort of deal”, said The Economist. “Two other scenarios are possible: a Ukrainian frontline or political collapse, aided by Kremlin subversion; or Russia’s economy buckling as aerial attacks shut down its oil industry”, but “either of the two would have massive consequences for Europe, and the world”.

Other conflict hotspots include India/Pakistan following a deadly skirmish in 2025, Congo/Rwanda, and the ongoing civil war in Sudan. Tensions are mounting between China and Taiwan, although 2027 is seen as the more likely date for an invasion as it marks the centenary of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

Donald Trump continues to threaten conflict against Venezuela but if he is persuaded to back down, manages to maintain the Gaza ceasefire and negotiates an end to the war in Ukraine, he could be in the running for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize announced in October.

On the pitch and out of this world

Fresh from winning the inaugural Fifa Peace Prize, Trump will be looking to use the 2026 men’s football World Cup – this year jointly hosted by the US, Canada and Mexico – to push his Maga agenda even further.

Sixteen venues across the continent will host the biggest-ever edition of the tournament, with the number of teams increasing from 32 to 48 and the tally of games upped from 64 to 104. While it is still six months until the first ball is kicked, sports statistics platform Opta Analyst has crunched the numbers and predicted that Euro 2024 champions Spain are the most likely to win the Jules Rimet trophy, followed by France, England, Argentina and Germany.

Before that, there is the small matter of the Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics taking place in February.

A little further from home, the Nasa-led Artemis II mission will attempt the first manned orbit of the Moon in over half a century. The four-person crew will embark on a 10-day flight to “explore the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and to build the foundation for the first crewed missions to Mars”, said the BBC Sky at Night Magazine.

Originally planned for April 2026, the mission could now launch as early as 5 February. And while it “won’t land on the lunar surface” it will take astronauts 5,000 nautical miles past the Moon and “further into space than any human has gone before”.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy raised both eyebrows and hopes across Eastern Europe this week after offering a surprising concession in the fraught negotiations to end Russia’s ongoing invasion. He told reporters on Tuesday that he would be willing to pull troops from parts of the contested Donbas region that Ukraine shares with Russia to establish an internationally monitored demilitarized zone, so long as Moscow does the same with the territory it controls in the area. Donbas, Zelenskyy said, is the “most difficult point” in negotiations to end the war between both nations.

‘Thorny territorial disputes’

Zelenskyy’s openness to a Donbas demilitarized zone comes as part of a “revised 20-point peace plan” crafted by American and Ukrainian negotiators that “covers a broad range of issues,” The New York Times said. The blueprint outlines everything from “potential territorial arrangements” to “security guarantees” and plans for rebuilding areas damaged in the war. Zelenskyy’s Donbas comments are the “closest” the Ukrainian leader has come to addressing the “thorny territorial disputes” that have “repeatedly derailed peace talks” in the region. Russia, which occupies the majority of the Donbas region, has “insisted that Ukraine relinquish” what remaining territory it controls in the area in an “ultimatum that Ukraine has rejected,” said The Associated Press.

Donbas has emerged as one of the “chief sticking points” in the current peace plan, with Kyiv afraid that “surrendering fortified positions” across the region might help Russia to “stage further attacks,” The Wall Street Journal said. The United States has pushed for a “compromise” over the area by encouraging the development of a “free economic zone” in the demilitarized territory.

In his remarks Tuesday, Zelenskyy “stressed that Ukraine is against the withdrawal,” Politico said. But “there are two options,” said Zelenskyy: “Either the war continues, or something will have to be decided regarding all potential economic zones.” The significance of his concession notwithstanding, it remains “difficult to imagine Russia accepting such terms,” considering how controlling the contested region has been “one of its main war objectives,” said Le Monde.

Referendum and nuclear problem

Beyond tactical fears of renewed Russian aggression in the region, Ukraine must also contend with “humanitarian concerns related to the relocation of residents” and the risk of a “serious blow to national morale” should it give up significant territory, the Times said. Accordingly, any demilitarized zone will need to be “approved by Ukrainians through a referendum.” The proposed peace plan also calls for a “joint U.S.-Ukrainian-Russian management” of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, “Europe’s largest,” currently under Russian control, said CBS News. Zelenskyy has stressed, however, that Ukraine “doesn’t want any Russian oversight of the facility.”

It is “now up to the Russian Federation to respond to this proposed agreement,” said Le Monde. To that end, Zelenskyy predicted, Moscow will be “ready to accept a plan in any case.”

“They can’t say to President Trump: ‘Listen, we’re against a peaceful settlement,’” Zelenskyy explained at his press briefing. “If they try to block everything, President Trump will then have to arm us heavily, while imposing every possible sanction on them.” In response to Ukraine’s apparent territorial flexibility, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a gathering of top Russian businessmen that a “partial exchange of territories from the Russian side is not ruled out,” said Russia's Kommersant newspaper, per Reuters. “In essence,” said the news service, “Putin wants the whole of Donbas” but is open to other territorial swaps “outside that area.”

EU leaders have chosen to raise €90 billion in joint debt to fund the Ukrainian war effort for the next two years after German-led proposals for a “reparations loan” secured against frozen Russian assets fell apart in the face of internal dissent.

Notably, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia will not participate in the joint debt scheme, meaning an “EU of 27 member states turned into a gang of 24” at the summit in Brussels last night, said Politico.

What did the commentators say?

Europe has undoubtedly shown commitment to Ukraine, but the decision “hardly sends an unequivocal message”, said the Financial Times. A “failure to find the cash” at all would have been a “terrible indictment of European weakness” when it “desperately needed to show resolve”.

But the bloc “blinked” when it came to the sterner step of using seized Russian assets to do so. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz “forcefully advocated” for the “reparations loan”, which he had framed as “the only option”, said Euronews.

But it was Belgian PM Bart De Wever who clearly came out on top. With the majority of the frozen Russian funds held by Belgium-based financial services firm Euroclear, De Wever “played hardball”, refusing to accept a deal that could “leave his country exposed to Russian retaliation”. His demands for unlimited protection from any legal complications arising from the use of the assets made the proposal “unpalatable for the rest” of the EU countries.

The joint debt arrangement means there is no guarantee that the funds will ever be paid back. The loan would be “interest-free” and Kyiv would pay it back with “reparations cash from Moscow”. However, it is “by no means guaranteed Russia will ever pay reparations for its invasion and the loan is likely going to become a grant”.

“Arguably, it didn’t need to be so messy,” said Politico. Ukraine’s European allies “have the resources to beat Putin if they really want to”. The EU’s financial position as an “economic superpower” is already strong compared to Russia, with the bloc’s combined GDP standing at €18 trillion against Russia’s €2 trillion.

What’s concerning “for Ukraine’s allies” is the dwindling support among the public in Europe’s biggest economies for Ukraine and its war effort. French and German respondents to a Politico poll “were even more reluctant to keep financing Ukraine than people in the United States”. By deciding on the €90 billion loan deal, “Europe’s leaders opted for the easiest answer this week. And even that was almost too hard.”

What next?

The defeat of the Merz plan in favour of the joint debt funding arrangement was undoubtedly a “fumble”, but from Ukraine’s perspective “there is little difference in the outcome”, said the Financial Times. The loan and the likelihood of it never being paid back relieves any further pressure on Ukraine’s “already aggravated finances”.

As for the Russian assets, EU leaders emphasised that the frozen funds “will remain immobilised and the union reserves its right to make use of them to repay the loan”. But in the meantime, it seems more likely that “successive EU budgets will absorb the cost”.

Russia’s demographic decline, turbocharged by the war in Ukraine, has given birth to “one of the world’s most extreme natalism campaigns – and one of the weirdest”, said The Atlantic.

The country’s fertility rate was 1.4 births per woman in 2023, according to the most recent UN statistics. That’s well below the 2.1 replacement rate and 20% lower than in 2015. And since then, an estimated quarter of a million Russian men have been killed in Ukraine. “Last year, deaths outpaced births by more than half a million.”

The state has been trying everything to encourage Russian women to have more children, from awarding pregnancy payouts and increasing maternal support to restricting access to abortions and stigmatising childlessness. The Ministry of Education is considering ways to create “conditions for romantic relations” in schools, and pink banners around Moscow ask women: “Still haven’t given birth?”

But, said The Atlantic, “if this is supposed to make them want to procreate, it doesn’t seem to be working”.

‘Much-diminished pool’

For more than 25 years, Vladimir Putin has been grappling with “his country’s declining and ageing population”, said The Independent. Russia actually recorded its lowest birth rate in 1999, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The birth rate was growing, along with the country’s “economic prosperity”, at the start of this century. And then, after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, its federal statistics service started including the peninsula’s population in its data, too. But now “those hard-won gains are crumbling against a backdrop of financial uncertainty, the war in Ukraine, an exodus of young men, and opposition to immigration”.

Russia is trying new restrictions to halt the backslide, from banning the promotion of abortion and “child-free ideology” to outlawing LGBTQ activism. But the post-Soviet cohort is already small, and hundreds of thousands of men have either been killed in Ukraine or have fled abroad to avoid military service. “You’ve got a much-diminished pool of potential fathers in a diminished pool of potential mothers,” Jenny Mathers, a Russian politics lecturer at the University of Aberystwyth told The Independent.

Russia also handled the Covid-19 pandemic disastrously. “Or rather, we didn’t handle it at all,” a demographer told exiled Russian journalists, said Meduza. “Russia ended up among the top 10 countries in the world for excess mortality.”

‘Madcap plan’

“In a sign of how seriously the Kremlin views Russia’s demographic crisis,” Putin recently addressed the inaugural meeting of a demographic council, said Novaya Gazeta. “Families with three or more children should become the norm, the natural way of life in our country,” the president said.

The deputy prime minister announced a new federal register that will allow authorities to track pregnant women and “monitor the demographic situation”.

One Russian politician has even suggested that couples should be barred from social media at night to encourage them to have sex, said The Mirror. Regional MP Mikhail Ivanov’s “madcap plan” for “digital abstinence” would see the Russian state switch off access to social media from 11pm to 2am every night.

Despite all of this, the Kremlin’s own polling suggests that almost 40% of Russian women of childbearing age don’t plan to have children in the next five years, said The Atlantic. And “none of these interventions addresses an underlying reason” why Russian women don’t want children: the war in Ukraine. “Many women are depressed, lonely, and afraid. Every day, the war makes more of them widows.”

Putin’s biggest problem “won’t be solved” by incentivising pregnancy. “He’s created a society that Russians no longer want to bring children into.”

The stakes couldn’t be higher this weekend as the UK and the EU attempt to win concessions from the US over a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

Depending on how the next few days play out, “in the very best scenario there could eventually be peace in Ukraine”, said The Times. But in the worst-case scenario for the UK and the EU, “President Trump cuts Ukraine and Europe loose and sides with Moscow in his desire to bring the conflict to an end at any price”.

Yesterday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Trump is “extremely frustrated with both sides of this war”, and he is “sick of meetings just for the sake of meeting”. In essence, “the transatlantic relationship feels very fragile right now,” a senior government source told The Times. “Anything could happen.”

What did the commentators say?

Despite Trump’s frustrations, “signs of a potential compromise are emerging”, said Politico’s London Playbook. The US and Ukraine are now talking about Kyiv withdrawing its troops from the Donbas region in order to create a “free economic zone” which would also be protected from Russian forces. “Ukraine seems willing to engage on this, but says it will only withdraw if it receives meaningful security guarantees.”

But reports of a demilitarised zone (DMZ) such as this “must be taken with a pinch of salt”, said UnHerd’s Wolfgang Munchau. “There are some suggestions that a DMZ would be a dealbreaker for Russia, like Nato Article 5 security guarantees for Ukraine.” Equally, Trump’s tilt toward the Kremlin in the National Security Strategy released by the White House last week has complicated negotiations. The US president “seems to want to stand equidistant between a democratic Europe and an autocratic Russia”, said The Washington Post’s David Ignatius. But “that evenhandedness between friend and foe makes no sense, strategically or morally – and it genuinely worries Europe.”

Trump “still views Ukraine as the weaker, more malleable party in the conflict”, two US government sources told Politico. “The Americans continue to act as though accepting Russia’s demand to hand over territory it has failed to occupy will bring peace,” said The Economist. But “all the evidence suggests Vladimir Putin sees it as a means to achieve Ukraine’s political subjugation”.

Indeed, many countries “remain concerned that a lopsided peace deal could work in Moscow’s favour, and prelude further aggression in Ukraine or against Nato’s long eastern flank”, said the National Security Journal’s Georgia Gillholy. European leaders “see little evidence that the Kremlin”, with more than 700,000 troops and its vast defence industry still geared for conflict, “is preparing for anything resembling a genuine de-escalation”.

What next?

According to officials from two of the countries involved, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff intends to take part in talks with national security officials from the UK and Europe this weekend.

One senior government source told The Times that developments in recent days had been “very significant” and that there was now at least a chance of achieving a unified “Western” set of proposals to present to Moscow.

But whether that means peace before Christmas is very much up in the air. Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said ahead of the discussions this weekend that Moscow has not seen the revised peace plan – and that “when we see them, we may not like a lot of things, that’s how I sense it”.

European leaders struggling to address the years of bloodshed on the border with Russia reached a milestone agreement last week, starting the clock on plans to fully uncouple the European Union from Russian gas. Under the new agreement, European nations will end liquefied natural gas imports in the coming year, with long-term pipeline contracts closed by the end of 2027. Europe is “turning off the tap on Russian gas, forever,” said EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen on X. “We stand strong with Ukraine.”

‘Choke off’ funds for ‘Moscow’s war chest’

Today, Russian gas accounts for some 12% of EU gas imports — down from 45% in the years before Russia’s still-ongoing invasion of Ukraine. As part of the new agreement, member nations will not only transition away from existing Russian gas supplies, but must submit “national diversification plans outlining measures for diversifying their gas supplies and potential challenges” with the goal of meeting the 2027 deadline, the EU said in a press release. The governing body “seeks to choke off key funds feeding Moscow’s war chest” during its offensive against Ukraine, said Le Monde.

The agreement comes as part of the EU’s “REPowerEU Roadmap” to energy independence from Russia. This initiative has “shielded us from the worst energy crisis in decades” and “helped us to transition” from Russian gas and oil at “record speed,” said EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a statement. Currently, the EU “sources the majority of its gas” from other suppliers “including the U.S.,” said The Wall Street Journal, as the bloc “remains committed to phasing out all remaining oil imports” from Russia as well.

Next year’s ban on liquefied natural gas comes a “year earlier than originally proposed” and is “in line with a ban on seaborne deliveries” previously approved by the European Commission, Bloomberg said. “We’re turning that page, and we’re turning it for good,” said von der Leyen.

Looming challenges from within

Predictably, Russia has responded to the EU agreement with criticism, claiming the move would “doom Europe to becoming less competitive” and “lead to higher prices for consumers,” said Reuters. But frustration over the new oil and gas rules hasn’t been limited to Moscow. Several EU member nations with close ties to Russia have also begun to publicly chafe at the agreement, which critics say was “wrongfully disguised” as an issue of trade policy in order to “circumvent the unanimous voting required for sanctions.”

“Accepting and implementing this Brussels order is impossible for Hungary,” said Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto in a broadcast from his Facebook page. Slovakia has also “complained of the impact” on its national economy should it be forced to reject Russian fuel, said Radio Free Europe. Slovakia has “sufficient legal grounds to consider filing a lawsuit” against the agreement, said Prime Minister Robert Fico. Opposition lawmakers have countered that “such a step would disgrace Slovakia” and is “advancing Russian interests in Europe,” said The Slovak Spectator.

What happened

The Kremlin Sunday applauded President Donald Trump’s new national security strategy, saying its “adjustments” are “largely consistent with our vision.” The document, released Friday, seeks “strategic stability” with Russia, asserts U.S. dominance over Latin America and is sharply critical of the country’s traditional European allies, claiming Western Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

Who said what

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response, delivered by spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, was “the first time that Moscow has so fulsomely praised such a document from its former Cold War foe,” Reuters said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “made only a passing reference to Russia” in a speech Saturday on the new U.S. military focus, Politico said, but he laid out a “more conciliatory approach to China’s armed forces,” the focus of recent national defense strategies. The Trump administration will “seek a stable peace, fair trade and respectful relations with China,” Hegseth said, including “respecting” Beijing’s “historic military buildup.”

The strategy “reinforces, in sometimes chilly and bellicose terms, Trump’s ‘America First’ philosophy, which favors nonintervention overseas,” The Associated Press said. But the administration “in some respects, wants to have it both ways when it comes to foreign relations,” Politico said. For example, the document proposes “a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine” to “restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.”

“Little of this is surprising,” Ishaan Tharoor said at The Washington Post, but the strategy starkly “underscored the depth of ideological vehemence within the White House” against the European Union and in favor of Europe’s far right. The continent’s immigration policies, “cratering” birthrates, “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition” could make it “unrecognizable in 20 years or less,” the document said, so it’s “far from obvious” that “certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.” Trump’s assessment of Europe sometimes “sounds like Putin talking about Europe,” Jürgen Hardt, the foreign policy spokesperson for Germany’s ruling alliance, told DW.

What next?

The U.S. “remains our most important ally” in NATO, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told reporters, but Europe does “not need outside advice” on “freedom of expression or the organization of our free societies.”

“Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem,” Polish prime minister Donald Tusk posted on X. “Unless something has changed.”

Tusk was reacting to the new US National Security Strategy, which has landed in European capitals at the weekend “like a bucket of cold water”, said The Wall Street Journal. Hailed by Russia as aligning “in many ways” with “our vision”, the explosive 30-page document criticises the “unrealistic expectations” of “European officials” backing Ukraine. It also castigates the EU for “censorship of free speech”, praises the “growing influence of patriotic” political parties, and warns of the “civilizational erasure” of Europe.

Signalling a more isolationist approach to Donald Trump’s foreign policy, the document declares “the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over”.

What did the commentators say?

This “grenade” of a policy paper will have stunned European leaders by revealing “the depth of ideological vehemence within the White House”, said Ishaan Tharoor in The Washington Post.

The “pointed criticisms” of Europe, cast as “tough love advice”, stand in marked contrast to the document’s “approach to traditional US rivals”, said Daniel Michaels, David Luhnow and Max Colchester in The Wall Street Journal. Russia “isn’t mentioned a single time as a possible threat to US interests” and China, North Korea and the Middle East receive surprisingly little attention.

European leaders should “assume that the traditional trans-Atlantic relationship is dead,” Katja Bego from the Chatham House think tank told the paper. It’s “the mother of all wake-up calls for Europe”, historian Timothy Garton Ash added. “It essentially declares outright opposition to the European Union. It’s J.D. Vance’s notorious speech in Munich but on steroids and as official US policy.”

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has sought to downplay European concerns, conceding that “some” of the US criticism is “true”. Europe “has been underestimating its own power towards Russia,” she told a panel at the Doha Forum in Qatar this weekend. “We should be more self-confident.”

What next?

Since Trump’s return to the White House, “European leaders have kept up a remarkable performance of remaining calm amid his provocations, so far avoiding an open conflict that would sever transatlantic relations entirely”, said Tim Ross on Politico. But for centrists like Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, “the new Trump doctrine poses a challenge so existential that they may be forced to confront it head-on”.

But there’s a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Trump’s document. “By underplaying – and refraining from even referencing – the conventional threat Russia poses to transatlantic security”, it does nothing to “empower those nations that are working to take on greater defence responsibilities”, said Torrey Taussig, a director at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, on Atlantic Council.

Instead, this strategy paper “seeks to embolden” Europe’s “nationalist and populist parties”, who would probably “cut defence budgets and downplay the conventional threats”. In this sense, the document is an “own goal that undermines the administration’s stated objectives” of “shifting the burden of defence onto the shoulders of European allies”.

The spectre of Donald Trump looms large over the first state visit by Vladimir Putin to India since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began.

Putin was met on arrival with a warm embrace by Narendra Modi and the two leaders are due to discuss deals over oil, arms, working visas and strengthened diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Following an opening press conference, two things “stood out”, said the BBC: first, a “conspicuous display of mutual respect”; and second, an “absence of any blockbuster announcement”.

The “need” for both countries right now is to boost “bilateral trade”, as Russia is “reeling” from Western sanctions and India is “facing 50% tariffs from Washington”.

What did the commentators say?

Modi continues to walk a diplomatic “tightrope” between Russia and the US, said Foreign Policy. Putin’s two-day visit is a stern “test” of how well India can “balance ties” with the two countries.

The summit comes at a “critical juncture” for both Russia and India, mostly due to the looming presence of the US, said The Guardian. Trump’s re-election has “upended years of closely nurtured US-India relations”, causing disruption with “inflammatory rhetoric” and “punishing” import tariffs. As a result, Delhi has been thrown “into a tailspin”.

Putin, too, is not in Trump’s good books. He has rejected the latest US-proposed peace plan for Ukraine, and is looking to bolster Russia’s recent battlefield advances that have “strengthened his hand” with diplomatic gains.

“The question of oil also looms large.” Modi has “insisted that India would continue to buy Russian oil” – Moscow supplies over 35% of India’s crude oil imports, compared to only around 2% before the war in Ukraine began. However, heavy US-imposed sanctions have led to a “notable slowdown” in this supply to appease Trump, not to mention India having “agreed to import more US oil and gas”.

“India is rolling out the red carpet for the Russian president”, undermining global efforts to cast him as an “international pariah”, said Bloomberg. India, though still wanting to maintain economic ties with the US, is looking to diversify and “gain more access to the Russian market”. Most likely, this week could see an agreement reached over the “shipment of marine products and agricultural goods”, both of which would be in India’s favour.

Russia’s interests are clear too. India, with a population of around 1.5 billion and the “fastest growing major economy” in the world, is a “hugely attractive market” for Russian goods and resources, said Steve Rosenberg, the BBC’s Russia editor.

Putin’s enthusiasm is plentiful. One “priority” is weapons sales, with reported deals on exporting “state-of-the-art Russian fighter jets and air defence systems”. Due to the war in Ukraine, Russia has also been hit with a labour shortage, and India presents itself as a “valuable source of skilled workers”. Most importantly, the main benefit is geopolitical: the Kremlin “enjoys demonstrating that Western efforts to isolate it over the war in Ukraine have failed”.

What next?

Any progression towards a peace deal in Ukraine would “give India more breathing room” with the US than it had six months ago. Then, Trump’s “ire” towards Modi “ran high” and he imposed additional 25% tariffs on the country, said The Wall Street Journal.

Putin is expected to offer “Russia’s latest arms” to “bolster the long-standing relationship” between them. Even if this were to fall through, the mere prospect of a summit shows that the relationship is on an “upswing”, according to one expert.

The latest Ukraine peace talks with Vladimir Putin have failed again to make a breakthrough, and Europe has begun to think the unthinkable. In the face of Russia’s increasing cyberattacks, sabotage and violations of its airspace, it’s making plans to be more aggressive – economically and militarily.

The European Commission is moving ahead with plans to further fund Ukraine, either with a loan based on Russia’s frozen assets or a loan based on common borrowing. And, with Russian “drones and agents unleashing attacks across Nato countries”, Europe is “doing what would have seemed outlandish just a few years ago”, said Politico. It’s “planning how to hit back”.

What did the commentators say?

Russian “hybrid attacks” on European countries – GPS jamming, drone-buzzing, election interference, ship or aircraft incursions – have been going on for years “but the sheer scale and frequency” right now is “unprecedented”, said Victor Jack and Laura Kayali on Politico. Such an aggressive testing of Europe’s limits has prompted calls for a step up in response, with ideas ranging from “joint offensive cyber operations” to “surprise Nato-led military exercises”.

Many diplomats – “particularly those from eastern European countries” – have “urged Nato to stop being merely reactive”, said Richard Milne in the Financial Times. We are thinking of “being more aggressive or more proactive”, Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of Nato’s military committee, told Milne. “A pre-emptive strike” could even be considered a “defensive action”. The Russian foreign ministry swiftly called Dragone’s comments “extremely irresponsible” and a sign that Nato is “moving towards escalation”.

Nato has successfully countered hybrid attacks before. Its Baltic Sentry ship and air patrols stopped the cutting of undersea cables in 2023 and 2024 “by vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet”, said the FT’s Milne. But there are “still worries in the alliance” about such measures.

Putin “may see the EU and Nato as rivals or even enemies” but Europe “does not want war with a nuclear-armed Russia”, said Jack and Kayali in Politico. “It has to figure out how to respond in a way that deters Moscow but does not cross any Kremlin red lines that could lead to open warfare”.

“The ratcheting up of the Ukraine conflict into what is perceived as a European war is already well underway,” said Laura Tingle on ABC News. Though Putin has called it “laughable” that Russia could attack Europe, it’s “no laughing matter to a host of European political and military leaders”. The discourse “is all getting very alarming (or alarmist, depending on your perspective)”. It’s clear that “something has now been unleashed in Europe which is going to be hard to put back in the bottle”.

What next?

“Europe’s efforts to rearm” have publicly “moved into overdrive” but “behind the headlines lies a more uneven reality”, said Anna Conkling in the Brussels-based The Parliament magazine. Europe is still “split between countries rapidly expanding their militaries and those still constrained by years of underinvestment and fiscal fragility”.

Some states are powering ahead, while “others drag their feet”, risking a “two-speed defence model“ that could leave Europe “dangerously exposed”. This means “the buy-in of the largest countries” is “all the more important for Europe’s defence to reach a critical mass”.

What happened

Canada Monday became the first non-European Union country to join the EU’s $170 billion Security Action for Europe initiative, giving Canadian defense firms expanded access to the European market.

SAFE is “part of a major drive” to get the EU “ready to defend itself by 2030 amid fears of a Russian attack and doubts about U.S. protection,” Reuters said.

Who said what

“Welcome to SAFE, Canada!” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on social media. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country’s “participation in SAFE will fill key capability gaps, expand markets for Canadian suppliers and attract European defense investment into Canada.” In a joint statement, the EU and Canada called the agreement the “next step” in their “deepening cooperation” and “symbolic” of their “shared priorities.”

Carney’s pivot to Europe comes as Canada “looks to diversify its military spending away from the United States” after President Donald Trump’s “actions — including launching a trade war and suggesting Canada become the 51st U.S. state — infuriated Canadians,” The Associated Press said. Canada’s government “continues to review the purchase of U.S. F-35 fighter jets to explore other options.”

What next?

Bringing another G7 partner into SAFE strengthens the program’s credibility as the EU “seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base,” Politico said. Talks for the U.K. to join “broke down on Friday.” EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius Monday said all 19 participating European nations have submitted their spending plans, financed by low-interest SAFE loans, and 15 of those plans included “billions, not millions” to support Ukraine.

What happened

After eliminating multiple Russian demands from a peace plan backed by President Trump, U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators agreed this week in Geneva on the framework for a deal to end the Ukraine war—but Russia’s acceptance appeared unlikely. The framework is a heavily revised version of the 28-point peace plan that emerged last week from a secret meeting between White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev. That plan set off a firestorm when it was leaked, with Ukrainian and European officials and many U.S. lawmakers criticizing it as a surrender requiring no concessions from Moscow. It would have forced Ukraine to cede not only Russian-occupied regions but territory it still controls in the Donbas, reduced and capped the size of its military, and barred Ukraine from NATO membership and having NATO peacekeepers on its soil. Trump issued an ultimatum to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept the deal or “continue to fight his little heart out” without U.S. support.

The ground soon shifted, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian and European negotiators in Geneva and removed nine of the most objectionable points from Russia’s plan. Rubio said he was “very optimistic” about the new, 19-point framework, which leaves the final territorial lines open to further negotiation. Zelensky asked to meet directly with Trump “as soon as possible” to lobby against any land concessions to Russia and finalize the amended plan. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said any meaningful changes to understandings reached between Putin and Trump would create “a fundamentally different situation.”

What the columnists said

The only explanation for this confusing series of events is that “rival factions” within the White House fought over the peace plan “and made a mess of it,” said Nick Catoggio in The Dispatch. Witkoff, Kushner, and Dmitriev “essentially laundered a Kremlin Christmas wish list,” triggering an uproar. Rubio then told a bipartisan group of senators that the 28-point plan came from Russia and was not the U.S.’s proposal. The secretary of state worked with Ukrainian and European envoys to shape a proposal that a relieved Zelensky is now endorsing while Moscow scowls.

The initial plan realized Ukraine’s worst fears, said Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review. Once again, Trump was “doing Russia’s bidding,” which became all the more obvious when he issued his “stark ultimatum” to Zelensky. Rubio was the game changer, said Jack Blanchard and Dasha Burns in Politico. When the White House cast the proposal “as a fait accompli,” he shifted the narrative, insisting Ukraine deserved a say. The longtime “Russia hawk” then forged a Ukraine friendly peace proposal in Geneva that he’s touting as the best “we have had in our entire 10 months of working on these issues.” Clearly, this “ultra-positive message was aimed at a certain Audience of One.”

Zelensky handled Trump shrewdly, showing he’s learned “since foolishly sparring with him in the Oval Office in February,” said The Washington Post in an editorial. Faced with the disastrous Russian plan Trump adopted, he “remained calm and offered to negotiate.” But the likely outcome of any plan that denies Putin his main goals is that Russia will fight on “no matter the human cost.”

Trump and Putin hoped that a “weakened” Zelensky would have to swallow a bad deal, said Yaroslav Trofimov in The Wall Street Journal. Rocked by a corruption scandal that has ensnared top ministers and “sparked fury across Ukraine,” he’s on shakier ground politically than at any point during the four-year war. But that makes him actually less likely to give ground in a conflict “many Ukrainians view as existential.” Despite brutal losses, they are in no mood to surrender.

Nor is Putin about to bend, said Paul Sonne in The New York Times. He would gladly have taken as a win a “Kremlin-friendly peace plan that enshrines Ukraine’s perpetual subordination.” But he’ll also see “a failed process” as a victory if it leads Trump to “pull remaining support for Ukraine.” With his economy struggling and his troops mired in a slow advance that’s had a steep cost in “lives and matériel,” Putin’s capacity for continued war “isn’t limitless.” But he believes “time is on his side,” and his goal hasn’t shifted: He “wants to break Ukraine.”

After days of frantic diplomacy, Donald Trump claimed this week that his negotiators had made “tremendous progress” towards ending the Ukraine War. The Ukrainian leadership indicated that it had accepted the “core terms” of a US-backed peace plan – and Trump said that his envoy, Steve Witkoff, would be dispatched to the Kremlin for talks with Vladimir Putin next week. However, significant doubts remained, both about the exact terms of the deal, and about Russia’s position. On Wednesday, Russian officials indicated that the deal was not acceptable.

Last week, Trump had piled great pressure on Kyiv to sign up to a 28-point plan that the US had drawn up following Witkoff’s talks with Russian envoys in Miami. That proposal echoed Moscow’s maximalist war aims, by calling for Kyiv to cede the rest of the Donbas region, and to limit its army to 600,000 personnel. It caused alarm among Ukraine’s European allies, whose 19-point counter-proposal is believed to form the basis of the deal Kyiv later accepted.

Pro-Russia bias

Effectively, the US-Russia peace plan amounted to a demand for Ukraine’s “outright surrender”, said The Times. It would have handed over Ukraine’s “fortress belt” in the Donbas, which it has spent years defending, and denied it meaningful security guarantees. If Zelenskyy had bowed to Trump’s ultimatum to agree to its terms by Thanksgiving, 27 November, or lose access to US weapons and intelligence, he’d surely have had to resign.

This peace plan was reportedly leaked by Moscow, said The Economist – and AI analysis suggests it was translated from the original Russian. Either way, it again “betrayed” Trump’s pro-Russia bias, and his indifference to Ukraine; as did his dismissive suggestion that Zelenskyy can “fight his little heart out” if no deal is struck, and his grousing on social media that “UKRAINE ‘LEADERSHIP’ HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS.”

Sobering question

There was a “grim familiarity” to events last week, said The Guardian. As in August, when Trump hosted Putin in Alaska, Kyiv and its European allies had been excluded from talks which would decide their future, and were left scrambling to improve a Moscow-friendly deal.

Europe’s leaders were confronted with a sobering question, said Michael D. Shear in The New York Times: was the US about to force Ukraine to “capitulate”, to the detriment of Nato and the benefit of Putin – “all without even bothering to consult with them”? It looked that way for a while; but by Tuesday, the crisis had been averted by European leaders who have honed their “how-to-handle-Trump playbook” during a year of similar episodes. Rather than lashing out, they “embraced” the plan to keep Trump onside, while insisting that it was only a starting point for negotiations. “The goal was to slow the process and eliminate some of the provisions they saw as crossing Europe’s red lines.”

The Europeans succeeded in shrinking the 28-point plan to 19 points, said Roger Boyes in The Times. But several of Russia’s key demands remained: no Western military presence in Ukraine, no Nato membership. And the fundamental questions – how to divide the land, and security guarantees against future invasions – remained apparently unresolved. As usual with Trump’s “drive-by diplomacy”, nothing adds up.

‘Miserable choice’

With the knotty questions about territory yet to be resolved, Russia is “trying to pour cold water on the prospects of an imminent peace breakthrough”, said Samuel Ramani in The Daily Telegraph. It continues to bombard Ukrainian cities; its officials have dismissed the new proposals as “not constructive”.

For Kyiv, the risk now is that Putin will talk Trump into backing favourable terms for Russia, said Tim Ross et al in Politico. That would leave Zelenskyy with a “miserable choice”: either take an offer “cooked up by Trump and Putin”, or hope that his European allies finally make good on their bold promises of help.

Sooner or later, though, he’ll have to make a deal, said Gideon Rachman in the FT. During four years of war, Ukraine has sustained hundreds of thousands of casualties. Millions of its citizens have fled abroad, and its economy lies in ruins. A bad settlement could imperil its future as a “genuinely independent” nation. But make no mistake: “the continuation of the war is also deeply damaging to Ukraine”.