Russian expertise has shaped pilot training and combat tactics, Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has told RT

Russia is one of Ethiopia’s key long-term strategic partners and Moscow has consistently supported the African country during some of its most difficult periods, Ethiopian Air Force chief Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has said. 

Speaking to RT, Merdassa said he had trained in Russia and flown Soviet and Russian-made aircraft, including the Su-27. He noted that Russian and Soviet cooperation had significantly shaped the Ethiopian Air Force through pilot training, maintenance systems, and combat tactics, adding that ties weakened after the collapse of the Soviet Union but were later restored and continue to expand.   

“Russians are our strategic partners and I always used to say Russians are a very principled nation, principled government, always. They have been with us during difficult times,” Merdassa said. 

Merdassa added that cooperation between Moscow and Addis Ababa in military aviation would become “stronger and stronger” in the future, describing Russia’s aviation expertise as highly influential for Ethiopian pilots, engineers, and instructors.

Read more

“Russian instructors have a great role in shaping and training and making experienced pilots and technicians in Ethiopia,” he stressed. 

Beyond military cooperation, Russia and Ethiopia have been expanding ties in numerous areas. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening relations between the countries during a phone call in March, according to the Kremlin. The two leaders also agreed to intensify contacts at various levels.

Bilateral trade nearly tripled year-on-year in 2025 to more than $435 million, Russian Ambassador to Ethiopia Evgeny Terekhin told TASS in February, citing growth in Russian exports of fertilizers and machinery as well as rising Ethiopian coffee supplies to Russia.

READ MORE: Russia boosts ties with new BRICS member

Russia and Ethiopia established diplomatic relations in 1943 and both countries maintain embassies in Addis Ababa and Moscow.

Rana Dasgupta maps the decay of Britain and America, but his vision of what comes next is far less convincing than his diagnosis

It is apposite that ‘After Nations, The Making and Unmaking of a World Order’ – written by English novelist turned historian Rana Dasgupta – should be published as Donald Trump is desperately seeking to extract America from an ill-judged and calamitous war in Iran.

‘After Nations’ is an analysis of the rise and fall of the modern nation state – which Dasgupta sees as a uniquely powerful, secular political entity that first emerged in Western Europe some 300 years ago. The nation state’s theological foundation was reformation Christianity, its political philosophy was enlightenment liberalism, and its economic base was the then emerging capitalist economy.

For Dasgupta, the modern Western nation state is an intrinsically exploitative and aggressive political organization, which derived its unprecedented power from capitalist exploitation of its own citizens, and an even more brutal domination of its colonial possessions.

He views Britain and America as having been the most powerful modern nation states. Britain was the first modern nation state, and was the dominant global power from the 18th century until World War I. Thereafter, America supplanted a declining Britain, becoming the domineering global hegemon after World War II – by means of establishing a new global economic and political world order.

That American-controlled world order is now collapsing, and contemporary America and other Western nation states find themselves beset by acute internal crises that, because of their intrinsically exploitative and aggressive nature, they are incapable of resolving.

Read more

In the concluding chapter of his book, Dasgupta suggests that the nation state as a generic political entity may itself be doomed to disappear, and be replaced by more ecologically friendly, less exploitative political structures.

He sees this coming about as a result of an ideological transformation engendered by digital technology and the big tech companies. This radical change will involve mankind embracing “a new universal faith” based upon a “planetary godhead”; creating “a universal digital citizenship”; adopting a “digital currency”; adopting “a new digitally based planetary law”; and radically “reforming our relationship with nature.”

The final chapter the book reads like an eco-technological fable, and Dasgupta’s belief in the eventual disappearance of the nation state reveals itself to be a frankly utopian philosophical assumption, rather than a reasoned conclusion that arises from his own otherwise acute historical analysis.

The notion that the nation state as a generic political entity might disappear is, in fact, inconsistent with the historical analysis at the heart of ‘After Nations’. As that analysis makes clear, the crisis of the nation state described in the book is confined to Western liberal democratic nation states and cannot be applied to powerful contemporary illiberal nation states like China and Russia.

In fact, Dasgupta himself characterizes contemporary China and Russia as unique “transnational political entities” that possess a greater degree of political stability and resilience than Western nation states. If his analysis of the irreversible decline of America and the West is correct, then surely China and Russia are destined to become even more powerful, even if only comparatively, in the future.

And if America and other liberal democratic nation states are becoming less liberal and less democratic, might not these states also survive indefinitely, albeit in a more authoritarian, illiberal and populist form?

Read more

It must also be said the tech giants – who Dasgupta views as successors to earlier rapacious capitalist corporations like the British East India company – make very strange agents for bringing about progressive revolutionary change.

Leaving aside the book’s flawed final chapter, ‘After Nations’ contains a comprehensive and acute analysis of the rise and decline Britain and America as global hegemonic states.

The last historian to produce a compelling analysis of world-wide political developments over the past 300 years was Barrington Moore Jr. in his ‘Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy’, published in 1966 – coincidentally as America was embroiled in yet another disastrous war in Vietnam.  Barrington Moore Jr. viewed social democracies as being the product of unique social causes that could not be replicated – and for him, they were, therefore, political anomalies within a global world order made up of powerful illiberal nation states.

Barrington Moore Jr.’s book was written before America and the West’s decline had commenced, and ‘After Nations’ – written six decades later from a global economic perspective – is a worthy successor to it.

What, then, are the broad outlines of Dasgupta’s historical analysis, and what does the book tell us about America’s contemporary decline as a global power?  

Britain, for Dasgupta, was the first modern nation state, and he shows that it was an authoritarian, elitist, capitalist enterprise from the very beginning – ruthlessly exploiting its own displaced peasants by transforming them into a much-needed industrial proletariat, whilst at the same time plundering its vast colonial empire.

Read more

Dasgupta argues that Britain’s industrial revolution was made possible by the immense wealth that the British nation state had brutally extracted from its foreign possessions – most notably by the British East India Company in India – over the previous two centuries.

The British working class was incorporated into the autocratic British nation state as a matter of economic necessity, and the benefits grudgingly conferred on workers by the late 19th century – compulsory education, public health measures, a degree of economic prosperity, and a limited form of democracy – were also paid for by Britain’s ongoing economic exploitation of its colonial empire. This process reached its apogee in the Atlee government’s creation of the modern welfare state after World War II.

Since the 1970s, however, when manufacturing industries in Britain, America, and the West began to be relocated to the Third World – and factory workers were no longer needed, except as docile consumers – the incorporation of the working class has been reversed, and the benefits previously conferred on workers have been systematically withdrawn. Dasgupta terms this process the “downsizing of social bargains.”

Full employment has been abandoned, jobs have been casualized, union membership has declined, and worker’s wages have remained stagnant for decades. And, amidst widespread corruption, vast disparities in wealth have emerged between the elites that control and benefit from the new technologically driven global economy and those ordinary citizens who have been pauperized by it.

Conservative politicians – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – initially presided over this elite-controlled process, but it intensified apace under elite-beholden Labour and Democrat politicians – most notably Tony Blair and Barack Obama.

This has led to mass economic displacement, intensifying cost of living pressures, widespread political disenchantment, and the rise of populist parties – all indicia of the internal crisis that has engulfed both Britain and America, and Western nation states generally, in recent decades. Western nation states, according to Dasgupta, are now “unable to deliver the … rights, freedoms and security” that they previously provided to their citizens.

Read more

Dasgupta sees both Britain and America as having recently become increasingly authoritarian and exploitative polities – controlled by large global economic organizations, most notably the tech giants – that have much in common with the frankly autocratic and undemocratic emerging nation states of the 18th and 19th centuries.

America became the world hegemonic power in the aftermath of World War II – by creating a new global economic system at Bretton Woods, and a new global political order based upon the United Nations and military alliances, the most important of which was NATO.

This new American world empire, unlike its British predecessor, was ideological rather than territorial, and it compelled weaker nation states to submit to its economic hegemony by means of military interventions – that replaced uncooperative political regimes with governments, for the most part dictatorial, that favored American economic interests.

Guatemala in 1954 was the first of these interventions – resulting in a left-wing president being deposed and replaced by a brutal pro-American dictator. America repeated this process of regime change dozens of times in the following decades – often with success, as in Chile in 1973, and sometimes unsuccessfully, as with the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

Alongside these targeted interventions, America also became involved in ‘forever wars’ in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – all of which ended in embarrassing American defeats.

American hegemony reached its zenith after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s – but, according to Dasgupta, the American empire entered a period of decline thereafter, as China and Russia began to re-emerge as powerful nation states at the beginning of the 21st century.

Read more

It was China, in particular, that posed the greatest threat to American hegemony – as the Chinese empire expanded across the globe. The Chinese empire was neither territorial nor ideological – rather it expanded by way of “focusing on infrastructure and resources” in those nation stares that signed up to its Belt and Road program. This led to the creation of new political models – like BRICS – that are not aligned with America.

And as America’s foreign policy disasters piled up globally, its internal economic and political crisis intensified – in part because American imperialism had “contaminated its own political soul” – culminating in Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016.

Dasgupta sees Trump’s rule as a more brutally aggressive and irrational version of America’s post-World War II global empire, now based upon “sheer gangsterism”. Gone is even the pretense of bringing freedom and democracy to those countries that it invades – and America’s foreign aggression now openly justifies itself in explicitly brutal and apocalyptic terms.

This was already apparent from Trump’s support for Israel’s war of destruction on Gaza – and Trump’s recent bellicose threat to “bomb Iran back to the stone age” simply confirms this change. Dasgupta reminds us that this phrase was first used by General Curtis LeMay in relation to Vietnam – but Le May was an extremist right-wing Cold War warrior, and President Lyndon Johnson would never have contemplated justifying America’s war in Vietnam in such explicitly violent and irrational terms.

Nor did previous presidents attempt to lay the Middle East to waste, dismantle NATO, destroy the global economic order that America itself had created, or threaten to invade Mexico and annex Canada and Greenland. Nor did Trump’s predecessors seek to systematically debauch and destroy liberal democratic institutions within America itself.

Dasgupta’s analysis of America’s decline is not only insightful – it is compelling.

Read more

‘After Nations’ was written before the current war in Iran commenced – and Trump’s attack on Iran was yet another archetypal American military intervention designed to bring about regime change in a country that refused to acknowledge American global hegemony.

It is now clear, however, that Trump’s attack on Iran has failed disastrously.

The resulting stalemate – which threatens to turn into another ‘forever war’ that a weakened America is militarily and politically incapable of waging – has intensified America’s internal crisis; created serious and ongoing global economic disruption; and generated tensions that threaten to break apart NATO.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently stated the obvious, namely that the war in Iran had become as “embarrassment” for America – and Trump responded by withdrawing 5,000 American troops from Germany, thereby further weakening the NATO alliance.

The war in Iran is also the first war that an American president has waged at the behest of another nation – namely Israel, which Dasgupta views as one of the most aggressive of modern nation states – in the face of near unanimous opposition from the CIA, the American military elite, and the president’s own cabinet. Not only does this highlight Trump’s irrationality, it also suggests that America no longer controls own its own foreign policy. In short, Donald Trump’s foolhardy war in Iran has made apparent America’s decline as world hegemonic power.

Code Pink activists have accused the weapons giant of complicity in the wars in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon

Anti-war activists have disrupted a Politico security forum sponsored by Lockheed Martin in Washington, DC, protesting the company’s role in supplying weapons for wars in the Middle East.

The ‘Security Summit’ held on Tuesday brought together US officials, lawmakers, defense executives, and foreign figures to discuss military priorities, Iran, cybersecurity, and AI warfare.

Politico said it aimed to “dissect the administration’s changing posture” on defense and future weapons. Critics mocked it as a war-planning shop dressed up as a security event.

Members of the anti-war group Code Pink staged a series of protests during live panels, interrupting speakers and accusing Lockheed Martin and government officials of profiting from and fueling the Middle East wars.

They blasted the forum as war profiteering wrapped in policy, saying the defense and tech companies have “blood on [their] hands,” and confronted officials over their support for US-Israeli actions against Iran.

The protesters also called for an end to the war in Gaza and the “genocide in Palestine,” with one person holding a sign reading “Lockheed Loves War.”

"THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECURITY! THIS IS ABOUT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION! THIS IS ABOUT PROFIT!"

At the Lockheed Martin-sponsored Politico "Security" Summit, CODEPINK activist Olivia DiNucci just disrupted Adam Smith, ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. pic.twitter.com/3W2Pl4KgIe

— CODEPINK (@codepink) May 12, 2026

“How dare you use the massacre of my people as a golden opportunity? How dare you, all of you war criminals in here!” one protester shouted during a panel.

“This is not about security. This is about death and destruction. They even said that the war in Iran is a golden opportunity,” another yelled as US Representative Adam Smith, a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, was speaking.

"Where were you when our people were pulling their children out from under the rubble of the bombs you invited into our country?"

This morning, an Iranian-American activist confronted Reza Pahlavi for supporting for the US-Israeli war on Iran a "security" summit in D.C. pic.twitter.com/a7LvTlsjQK

— CODEPINK (@codepink) May 12, 2026

An Iranian-American activist confronted Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, over his support for the US-Israeli war against Iran. “Where were you when our people were pulling their children out from under the rubble of the bombs you invited into our country? Shame on you!”

Read more

Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the US, has called for protests to topple the Iranian government.

At least four protesters were removed, according to videos shared online by Code Pink.

Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, receives more than $60 billion annually in Pentagon contracts and is a frequent target of anti-war protests.

Critics accuse the company of supplying weapons that cause heavy civilian casualties, including F-15 and F-35 jets, Hellfire missiles, and bunker-buster bombs used by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon.

Lockheed Martin has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, funneling weapons through Pentagon contracts and US aid programs. The conflict has sent the company’s production lines into overdrive, as Kiev’s Western backers empty their arsenals to keep the war machine running and then rush to refill them.

READ MORE: Kremlin explains impasse in Ukraine peace talks

Among the Lockheed Martin systems supplied to Ukraine are Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS launchers, ATACMS long-range missiles, F-16 fighter jets, and Javelin anti-tank missiles.

The continent’s exclusion from the powerful body is a “historical injustice,” Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said

Africa can no longer be excluded from permanent representation on the UN Security Council (UNSC), African Union Commission (AUC) Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said.

Speaking at a ministerial meeting on UNSC reform on the sidelines of the Africa-France Summit in Kenyan capital Nairobi on Monday, Youssouf said the continent’s demand is not a request for special treatment but a response to a long-standing imbalance in global governance.

“Africa is not asking for a favor; Africa is demanding the correction of a historical injustice,” he said, according to an AU statement. He added that the Security Council’s “credibility and legitimacy” depend on whether it reflects the realities of the present world rather than “the geopolitical order of 1945.” 

The AU’s position is based on the 2005 Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration. It calls for at least two permanent African seats with all the powers held by existing permanent members, including veto rights while the veto remains, as well as five additional non-permanent seats.

The Security Council currently has five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – and ten elected members serving two-year terms. Africa, despite having 54 UN member states, has no permanent seat on the body.

READ MORE: African state calls for urgent reform of UN Security Council

Several African leaders have renewed calls for reform in recent months. Republic of the Congo President Denis Sassou Nguesso said last year that the council no longer reflects the world’s geopolitical balance, while Kenyan President William Ruto urged at least two permanent African seats with veto power.

Read more

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has repeatedly called for Africa to be given a permanent voice on the council, saying the institution has failed to keep pace with global changes since 1945.

Russia has also backed expanding the Security Council to include more African, Asian, and Latin American states. Moscow’s deputy envoy to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, told an African Union Committee of Ten summit in New York in September that the council should reflect the “multipolar nature of the world” rather than “the global colonial past.” Polyansky said Russia supports Africa’s push for greater representation, while warning against increasing Western representation on the council.