The chancellor angered the White House by criticizing the Iran war
US President Donald Trump has said he could withdraw some American troops stationed in Germany amid a public spat with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the war in Iran.
“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of troops in Germany, with a determination to be made in the near term,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday.
In 2020, near the end of h
The chancellor angered the White House by criticizing the Iran war
US President Donald Trump has said he could withdraw some American troops stationed in Germany amid a public spat with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the war in Iran.
“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of troops in Germany, with a determination to be made in the near term,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday.
In 2020, near the end of his first term in office, Trump planned to withdraw around 12,000 of the roughly 36,000 service members stationed in Germany at the time. Former President Joe Biden later deployed additional troops to Germany, citing the Ukraine conflict.
More than 36,000 active-duty troops and 1,500 reservists are currently stationed at bases across Germany, according to CBS.
Trump has chided European allies for refusing to back the US-Israeli war with Iran and declining to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran closed to “hostile” shipping in February. The conflict has also prompted the president to revive his longstanding criticism of NATO, which he described this month as “a paper tiger.”
Speaking to students at a German school on Monday, Merz argued that the US was being “humiliated” by Iran and that the Trump administration lacked a clear strategy in the conflict. He also stressed that Germany was being hit hard by energy price increases caused by the war.
Trump responded by berating Merz on social media. “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding: “No wonder Germany is doing so poorly, both economically and otherwise!”
Merz sought to downplay the feud on Wednesday, saying his personal relationship with the US president “remains good.”
“I simply had doubts from the start about what was begun with the war in Iran. That is why I have made that clear,” Merz said, as cited by Reuters.
Meanwhile, oil prices rose above $120 on Wednesday, the highest level since 2022, with uncertainty continuing over the prospects for US-Iranian negotiations.
The EU has protested the reopening of the Russian pavilion at the prestigious art festival
Italy’s Culture Ministry is investigating the organizers of the Venice Biennale, a prestigious art festival, after Russia was allowed to return to the event, Italian media reported on Wednesday.
Many cultural institutions in the West have cut ties with Russia since February 2022 over the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin has condemned the campaign as a pointles
The EU has protested the reopening of the Russian pavilion at the prestigious art festival
Italy’s Culture Ministry is investigating the organizers of the Venice Biennale, a prestigious art festival, after Russia was allowed to return to the event, Italian media reported on Wednesday.
Many cultural institutions in the West have cut ties with Russia since February 2022 over the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin has condemned the campaign as a pointless attempt to “cancel” Russian culture.
According to Corriere della Sera, inspectors were dispatched to the Biennale Foundation to examine documents and financial records related to the planned reopening of the Russian pavilion. Officials were also reportedly instructed to review documents related to the pavilions of Iran and Israel.
Newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano reported that the organizers had previously provided communications with Russian authorities to the Italian Culture Ministry, and that no “irregularities” were found in terms of compliance with sanctions imposed on Russia.
The European Commission has condemned the decision to allow Russia to reopen its national pavilion, while Italian Culture Minister Alessandro Giuli said he would not attend the opening of the festival on May 9. Last week, the Biennale jury said it would exclude Russia and Israel from award consideration.
Biennale Foundation chief Pietrangelo Buttafuoco pushed back against the criticism, comparing the institution to “the UN of art, from which no nation can be excluded.”
Some Italian politicians, including Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, argued that the art sphere should not fall victim to politics. “I am not for the exclusion of anyone, so I invite the Biennale to go ahead,” Salvini said, as quoted by Euronews.
The suspect, a British national of Somali origin, remains in custody
Police have released bodycam footage showing officers detaining a suspect who allegedly stabbed two Jewish men on the streets of London on Wednesday.
Both victims are in stable condition, while the suspect, a 45-year-old British national of Somali origin, remains in custody, the Metropolitan Police said.
“The suspect also attempted to stab police officers and was Tasered before
The suspect, a British national of Somali origin, remains in custody
Police have released bodycam footage showing officers detaining a suspect who allegedly stabbed two Jewish men on the streets of London on Wednesday.
Both victims are in stable condition, while the suspect, a 45-year-old British national of Somali origin, remains in custody, the Metropolitan Police said.
“The suspect also attempted to stab police officers and was Tasered before being arrested. No officers were injured,” police said, adding that the attack had been declared a terrorist incident.
Police are also investigating whether the suspect was involved in a separate stabbing earlier that day in southeast London, which left one person lightly injured.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the incident as an “utterly appalling” attack and thanked the police and Jewish volunteer security guards for their response. “Attacks on our Jewish community are attacks on Britain,” he wrote on X.
The UK has seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents since Israel invaded Gaza in 2023. Last month, a group of young men torched four ambulances belonging to a Jewish charity in Golders Green, the same neighborhood where Wednesday’s stabbings occurred.
Beijing’s cautious foreign policy reflects deeper strategic constraints
The dramatic events of the first months of 2026 offer a useful lens through which to assess the evolving role of the world’s major powers. Among those often cast as architects of a new international order, China stands out, arguably even ahead of Russia and the United States, both of which remain preoccupied with their rivalry in Europe.
For decades, China’s rise has been one
The dramatic events of the first months of 2026 offer a useful lens through which to assess the evolving role of the world’s major powers. Among those often cast as architects of a new international order, China stands out, arguably even ahead of Russia and the United States, both of which remain preoccupied with their rivalry in Europe.
For decades, China’s rise has been one of the central forces shaping global change. As far back as the late 20th century, Henry Kissinger argued that China’s growing importance would prove more consequential than even the end of the Cold War. That judgment now appears prescient. Drawing on vast domestic resources and sustained inflows of foreign investment, Beijing has, in a remarkably short time, established itself as a leading economic power and a confident political actor on the global stage.
A decisive step in this transformation came with the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013. This ambitious project was designed not only to expand China’s economic reach but to position Chinese capital and infrastructure as the engine of development across entire regions. For many countries in the Global South, it offered an alternative to Western-led models, which have often been accompanied by political conditionality.
In parallel, Beijing has advanced broader concepts such as a “community of shared future for mankind” and new approaches to international security. These ideas have found receptive audiences among a wide range of states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, particularly as China has deepened its investment presence and become an indispensable economic partner.
Against this backdrop, China has increasingly been viewed as a credible alternative to the United States and the West more broadly. Western powers, after all, have long been accused of cloaking self-interest in the language of liberal economic ideals. China, by contrast, has emphasized non-interference and support for political stability in partner countries. Whether entirely accurate or not, this perception has strengthened Beijing’s appeal.
At the same time, China’s growing capabilities have generated rising expectations. Many countries now look to Beijing not merely as a partner, but as a counterweight, or even a potential successor, to Western leadership. Such expectations are partly a product of Western rhetoric itself, particularly the long-standing American claim to global responsibility. They also reflect the desire of many states to diversify their strategic options.
By the time the current phase of global restructuring began, China was widely seen as a power comparable to the United States in its ability to influence events far beyond its borders. Yet recent developments suggest a more cautious reality.
In the face of escalating international tensions, China has consistently refrained from intervening where its core interests are not directly at stake. These interests, it is increasingly clear, are concentrated primarily in its immediate neighborhood. Beijing’s response to events in 2026 illustrates this approach. It reacted calmly to the US strike on Venezuela, despite close ties with the country’s leadership. It has also avoided significant involvement in Cuba’s deepening crisis, even as the island faces unprecedented external pressure.
The same pattern is visible in the Middle East. Following US and Israeli actions against Iran, China has maintained a notably restrained position. This is striking given Beijing’s reliance on Iranian energy and Iran’s membership in organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. Rather than confronting Washington directly, China has focused on maintaining dialogue and protecting its broader strategic interests.
For some observers, this restraint raises questions about whether China is living up to the expectations placed upon it. But from another perspective, it reflects a deliberate and coherent strategy. China appears intent on avoiding direct confrontation with the United States, instead seeking to outmaneuver its rival over the long term.
Such an approach is not without risks. If Washington achieves success in its current initiatives, its confidence may grow, potentially bringing greater pressure to bear closer to China’s borders. In that scenario, Beijing could find itself facing a more assertive adversary in its own immediate environment.
At the same time, China’s current posture invites a broader reconsideration of how great powers define their interests. One of the enduring principles of international relations is that the greatest threats to major powers tend to come from within, rather than from external actors. From this perspective, China’s focus on internal stability and sustained economic growth is both logical and necessary.
Indeed, by maintaining domestic cohesion and economic momentum, China may ultimately draw other states into its orbit, not through coercion, but through the force of example and opportunity. Yet this strategy has its own vulnerabilities. Unlike Russia or the United States, China lacks abundant domestic energy resources and remains dependent on external supplies. This dependence introduces a degree of fragility into its broader geopolitical position.
Ultimately, for a power of China’s scale, the disruption of foreign economic ties could prove deeply destabilizing. A loss of geopolitical standing that limits access to global markets and resources would go beyond simply weakening China externally, it could undermine the internal stability that its leadership prioritizes above all else.
In this sense, China faces a fundamental dilemma. To withdraw too far into its own sphere of influence risks exposing the limits of its economic self-sufficiency. But to engage too deeply in global conflicts carries the danger of overextension.
For now, Beijing has chosen caution. Whether this strategy will prove sustainable in an increasingly volatile world remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that China’s dependence on the global economy will shape its choice, and their consequences, for years to come.
This article was first published by the Valdai Cluband edited by the RT team.
The US president has repeatedly hinted at a possible regime-change operation on the island
A Democratic-led effort to limit US President Donald Trump’s authority to use military force against Cuba without congressional authorization has failed in the Senate.
The Republican-majority Senate’s vote on the measure on Tuesday narrowly dismissed it as out of order in a 51-47 tally on grounds that there are no active hostilities with Cuba.
Senator Tim K
The US president has repeatedly hinted at a possible regime-change operation on the island
A Democratic-led effort to limit US President Donald Trump’s authority to use military force against Cuba without congressional authorization has failed in the Senate.
The Republican-majority Senate’s vote on the measure on Tuesday narrowly dismissed it as out of order in a 51-47 tally on grounds that there are no active hostilities with Cuba.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who introduced the war powers resolution in March, said it was needed as Trump’s blockade of the island had caused “humanitarian crises across Cuba,” including disruptions to medical care, shortages of clean water and rising food prices.
Trump imposed an oil blockade on Cuba in February, tightening the decades-old US embargo by threatening sanctions against countries and companies that ship crude to the island. He has repeatedly hinted at possible regime-change operations against the socialist government in Havana, pledging “a new dawn for Cuba” and warning that it is “next” after he is “finished with this,” in reference to the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran.
Trump said his policy of “peace through strength” – including the raid to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in January – had been “very, very successful.”
Cuba has faced nationwide blackouts and severe fuel shortages in recent months, after Venezuela – once its main oil supplier – halted shipments under US pressure.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez condemned Washington’s “ferocious blockade” of fuel supplies, calling it a “brutal onslaught” on the country’s economic system.
The situation briefly eased in late March, when a Russian tanker delivered 100,000 tons of crude after reportedly bypassing the US blockade. Trump later said that Washington doesn’t “mind having somebody get a boat load” into the island, as “they need to survive.” Moscow has said it will maintain support for Cuba amid the tightening blockade.
The move is expected to affect some 16,000 Ukrainian migrants housed in accommodation provided by the government
The Irish government has agreed to put in motion a plan to terminate government-provided accommodation for Ukrainian migrants, as well as cut benefits for those living in rentals.
An estimated 125,000 Ukrainians have received temporary protection in Ireland since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. According to loc
The move is expected to affect some 16,000 Ukrainian migrants housed in accommodation provided by the government
The Irish government has agreed to put in motion a plan to terminate government-provided accommodation for Ukrainian migrants, as well as cut benefits for those living in rentals.
An estimated 125,000 Ukrainians have received temporary protection in Ireland since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. According to local media reports, Dublin has spent more than €438 million ($516 million) on housing support for roughly half of them.
The government sealed the scheme to cut housing benefits for Ukrainians who arrived in Ireland before March 2024 on Monday. The move is set to affect some 16,000 Ukrainian migrants living in state-provided accommodation, save for those unable to live on their own and “highly vulnerable.”
Asked on Tuesday what exactly constitutes the latter category, Prime Minister Micheal Martin admitted that the government was still fleshing it out, adding that it would likely include “women and children and people with disabilities and so forth, elderly or frail people who need support.”
The withdrawal of state-provided accommodation will begin in August, with those affected to receive a minimum of three months’ notice. The properties used to house the migrants will be returned to tourism, alternative use, and potentially private rental, according to local media.
Apart from ending state-provided accommodation, the government opted to sharply reduce the Accommodation Recognition Payment Scheme from €600 to €400. The move, expected to be implemented in September and completed by March of next year, will affect a further 42,000 Ukrainians residing in hosted accommodation.
The government plans have been harshly criticized by pro-migrant groups and opposition politicians, who slammed them as “immoral and unethical” and bound to become “really problematic” for many Ukrainian families.
Last week, Irish Migration Minister Colm Brophy said the government has been considering offering payouts to Ukrainians to encourage them to leave and repatriate. The minister argued that Dublin had offered unique benefits to Ukrainians, pointing out that no other EU states had such programs.
An estimated 4.35 million Ukrainians are registered for temporary protection across the bloc. In recent months, numerous EU states, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Hungary, have moved to curb social programs for Ukrainian migrants.
The Ukrainian leader’s links to the businessman charged in a high level corruption case continue to cast a shadow over him
A Ukrainian media outlet has published what it claims to be transcripts from surveillance recordings of Timur Mindich, businessman and longtime associate of Vladimir Zelensky who is accused of orchestrating a major corruption scheme.
Mindich, who fled Ukraine for Israel last November shortly before being indicted and is now
The Ukrainian leader’s links to the businessman charged in a high level corruption case continue to cast a shadow over him
A Ukrainian media outlet has published what it claims to be transcripts from surveillance recordings of Timur Mindich, businessman and longtime associate of Vladimir Zelensky who is accused of orchestrating a major corruption scheme.
Mindich, who fled Ukraine for Israel last November shortly before being indicted and is now contesting an extradition request, was wiretapped by Western backed anti-corruption bodies. Some of the recordings, said to capture conversations at a luxury Kiev apartment, have been used as evidence in the case against him and his associates.
On Tuesday, Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) released an hour-long video in which a journalist reads what was described as partial transcripts of the ‘Mindich tapes.’ The outlet did not provide the original audio or clarify how the material was obtained, but said it was the first installment in a planned series.
Originally a subordinate within the orbit of Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoysky, whose media empire offered Zelensky opportunities as a comedian and producer, Mindich reportedly emerged as an independent power broker during Zelensky’s presidency, which extended beyond constitutional limits under martial law.
Mindich is the main suspect in an investigation conducted by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) into an extortion scheme in the state-owned atomic energy company Energoatom, that reportedly caused about $100 million in losses.
He has also been reported to be the chief beneficiary of Firepoint, a former casting company founded in 2022 that later claimed about $1 billion in sales of kamikaze drones and long range missiles, although he has described the alleged connection as “mythical” and slanderous.
Remarks by Kolomoysky that Mindich lacked the brains to run a serious criminal operation fueled suspicions that he was merely a patsy for the real mastermind.
Three separate conversations that Mindich allegedly held last year are described. One was with Sergey Shefir, a business partner of Zelensky and his first chief of staff. Another was with Rustem Umerov, who was defense minister at the time of the recording. A third was with a woman identified as Natalia, who reportedly oversaw a luxury construction project for Mindich and Andrey Yermak, Zelensky’s second chief of staff.
According to transcripts cited by UP, Mindich and Shefir discussed a separate bribery case of former Unity Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, who has since been embroiled in the Energoatom scandal. They reportedly spoke about raising funds for Chernyshov’s $2.7 million bail in coordination with “Andrey” and “Smirnov” – said by the outlet to be Andrey Yermak and one of his aides.
Shefir also reportedly said he was happy to be free of media scrutiny after leaving office, adding that he no longer had to hide visits to Mindich. He further urged Mindich to give an interview denying allegations that he was profiting from his government connections.
The recording involving Natalia concerns a residential development that the outlet described as a controversial project allegedly linked to Zelensky, Yermak, Mindich, and Chernyshov. In the conversation, Mindich reportedly laments having to mothball construction because of unwanted attention following Chernyshov’s downfall.
Mindich’s purported conversation with Umerov appears to suggest that the businessman was effectively running Firepoint. He allegedly pressed Umerov for additional funding, discussed an investment proposal from an UAE investor, and how shareholders could receive $300 million in cash, and claimed the company could undercut an unnamed American rival if given sufficient resources.
Mindich also reportedly urged Umerov to approve a shipment of body armor supplied by his firm that the ministry had refused to certify. That exchange was later cited in an indictment leaked to the press in November.
What new crimes do the tapes reveal?
None, by UP’s own account.
The outlet argued, however, that publishing the records was in the public interest because they appeared to confirm close ties between Mindich and senior government officials, including Zelensky and people in his inner circle.
A “Vova” – a familiar form of Zelensky’s first name – is mentioned several times in the recordings.
Ukrainskaya Pravda is considered a reputable major publication known for sources within law enforcement.
Leaks to the media are a longstanding tool of political infighting in Ukraine, as in many other countries. Whether the material came from investigators or from Mindich’s defense team, which has legal access to evidence in the case, remains unclear.
However, the outlet’s report is broadly critical of Mindich and his government associates.
How has the Ukrainian government reacted?
With silence.
Mindich declined to comment to UP, while the office of Rustem Umerov, who now heads the National Security and Defense Council, said it does not comment on fragmentary recordings of questionable authenticity.
Following the publication, an opposition lawmaker called on Umerov to testify before a parliamentary committee in mid May.
Is the timing of the Mindich tape leak significant?
Some Ukrainian outlets, such as Strana.ua, have suggested the leak came after the EU approved disbursement of a €90 billion ($105 billion) assistance package intended to bankroll Kiev. The funding lifeline reportedly helps avert a likely Ukrainian government shutdown.
The speculation is that Zelensky is being pressured to appoint EU-approved candidates to lead other law enforcement agencies that do not enjoy the same institutional independence as NABU and SAPO.
Last year, as investigators were getting close to charging Chernyshov, Zelensky had parliament approve a reform placing the anti-corruption bodies under the authority of the Prosecutor General’s office, a post he can appoint under presidential powers.
Zelensky later reversed the changes after mass protests broke out across the country, critical coverage appeared in mainstream media, and Kiev’s Western backers reportedly threatened to freeze all funding.
Notably, Ukrainskaya Pravda and Strana.ua are both mentioned in the leaked transcripts, with Mindich and Shefir reportedly speaking of them approvingly as news sources.
Russian International Affairs Council head Ivan Timofeev has told RT India that the UAE’s decision could reshape the global energy market
The United Arab Emirates’ decision to withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a natural move, a top Russian policy expert has said.
Membership in any organization is relevant when it corresponds to national interests, Russian International Affairs Council General Director Ivan Tim
Russian International Affairs Council head Ivan Timofeev has told RT India that the UAE’s decision could reshape the global energy market
The United Arab Emirates’ decision to withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a natural move, a top Russian policy expert has said.
Membership in any organization is relevant when it corresponds to national interests, Russian International Affairs Council General Director Ivan Timofeev said on an RT India panel. “When the perception of the national interest changes, it’s reasonable to expect that a state or member changes its stance.”
Timofeev added that given the current tensions in the Middle East, it is natural to expect a major player like the UAE to “strive to keep more free hands in terms of supplies... extraction [and] other factors which determine its national income.”
Though the Iran war significantly triggered the decision, the origins of this move emerged beforehand, he said. “But what is clear is that the attack against Iran stimulated and galvanized this way of thinking.”
Russia has welcomed the UAE’s move as a “sovereign decision.”
Also speaking on the panel, the host of RT’s New Order, Afshin Rattansi, noted that the UAE is already preparing for the post-war scenario. “There will be conversations in Delhi at the BRICS summit exactly about what a multipolar world means for energy resources,” he said.
The world is facing the biggest global energy supply shock on record, which will drive inflation and dampen economic growth globally
The Middle East war has triggered the biggest global energy supply shock on record and will drive a sharp rise in commodity prices, pushing inflation higher and slowing economic growth worldwide, the World Bank has warned.
Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping in the critical Strait of Hormuz have cut globa
The world is facing the biggest global energy supply shock on record, which will drive inflation and dampen economic growth globally
The Middle East war has triggered the biggest global energy supply shock on record and will drive a sharp rise in commodity prices, pushing inflation higher and slowing economic growth worldwide, the World Bank has warned.
Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping in the critical Strait of Hormuz have cut global supply by about 10 million barrels per day in the early stage of the US‑Israeli war on Iran, according to the bank’s Commodity Markets Outlook released on Wednesday.
Energy prices are set to jump by 24% this year to their highest level since 2022, while overall commodity costs will rise by 16%, the World Bank said, adding that the war has triggered “the biggest energy supply shock in history.”
Prices could climb further if the conflict intensifies, with oil potentially averaging $115 per barrel this year under the bank’s more severe disruption scenario.
Natural gas prices are also forecast to rise, with the EU particularly exposed to supply disruptions and higher import costs. Regional natural gas futures have surged in recent weeks.
The shock will ripple far beyond oil and gas, according to the report. Fertilizer prices are projected to climb by 31% this year, driven by a 60% surge in urea, raising concerns over agricultural output and food affordability. Prices for metals such as aluminum, copper and tin are also expected to hit record highs.
“The poorest people, who spend the highest share of their income on food and fuels, will be hit the hardest, as will developing economies already struggling under heavy debt burdens,” said World Bank Chief Economist Indermit Gill.
Brent crude briefly topped $117 per barrel on Wednesday, its highest level since March, amid supply concerns and after the UAE announced plans to exit OPEC, adding further uncertainty to global oil markets.
“The current situation is likely to keep inflation elevated globally, especially as disruptions in oil and commodity markets persist,” Iranian economist Peyman Molavi told RT, warning that uncertainty around Hormuz remains a key risk for further price increases.
He added that the UAE’s decision could increase market volatility by giving producers more freedom over pricing and output.
Talks between Washington and Tehran remain stalled, with US President Donald Trump reportedly rejecting an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lift the naval blockade while postponing nuclear negotiations to a later stage.
The two presidents discussed the Ukraine conflict and the escalation in the Middle East, according to Yury Ushakov
Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone call with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which the two discussed issues including the Ukraine conflict and the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.
During the conversation, Putin expressed his support to Trump in light of the latest attempt
The two presidents discussed the Ukraine conflict and the escalation in the Middle East, according to Yury Ushakov
Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone call with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which the two discussed issues including the Ukraine conflict and the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.
During the conversation, Putin expressed his support to Trump in light of the latest attempt on the US president’s life at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday. The Russian leader “strongly condemned” the incident, underlining that “political violence was unacceptable in any form,” Ushakov told journalists.
The Russian president backed Trump’s decision to extend the ceasefire with Iran, warning against renewed hostilities between the US-Israeli side and Tehran. Moscow is ready to mediate in the standoff and maintains contact with all the sides, Putin said, according to Ushakov.
“At the same time, the Russian president emphasized the inevitable, extremely dire consequences not only for Iran and its neighbors, but for the entire international community, should the US and Israel resort to the use of force again. And, of course, a ground operation on Iranian territory is regarded as a completely unacceptable and dangerous option,” the aide stated.
Putin and Trump also extensively discussed the Ukraine conflict and efforts to bring the hostilities to an end, Ushakov said. The two presidents “expressed essentially similar assessments of the behavior of the Kiev regime led by [Vladimir] Zelensky,” which has been “incited and supported by Europeans” to prolong the conflict at any cost, the official added.
“The American president emphasized the importance of a swift cessation of hostilities and his readiness to facilitate this in every possible way. His representatives will continue contacts with both Moscow and Kiev,” Ushakov added.
During the conversation, which lasted over 90 minutes and was initiated by the Russian side, the US leader praised the recent Easter truce announced by Moscow. Putin, in turn, proposed declaring a temporary ceasefire with Kiev during the upcoming Victory Day celebrations, Ushakov said.
“Trump actively supported this initiative, noting that the holiday commemorates our shared victory over Nazism in World War II,” he added.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said he had a “very good conversation” with Putin, “mostly about Ukraine.”
“I think we’re going to come up with a solution relatively quickly, I hope. I think [Putin would] like to see a solution, I can tell you, and that’s good,” the US president said.
RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij examines the accusations and IDF’s response
Footage appearing to show Israeli soldiers looting homes in southern Lebanon and filming themselves “joking around” while damaging property has emerged on social media.
The images come amid the fallout from the report by Haaretz last week alleging that looting by Israeli troops was widespread, with commanders turning a blind eye. The outlet cited testimonies from soldiers who de
RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij examines the accusations and IDF’s response
Footage appearing to show Israeli soldiers looting homes in southern Lebanon and filming themselves “joking around” while damaging property has emerged on social media.
The images come amid the fallout from the report by Haaretz last week alleging that looting by Israeli troops was widespread, with commanders turning a blind eye. The outlet cited testimonies from soldiers who described troops taking “significant amounts of civilian property,” including televisions, furniture, and motorcycles.
The incidents allegedly took place during Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon following renewed fighting with Hezbollah earlier this month.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has said “if” these incidents occurred, they would run contrary to the values of the IDF.
Watch the full report by RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij below.
Abu Dhabi’s break with the cartel could flood markets, rattle prices, and redraw power lines from Riyadh to Moscow
The United Arab Emirates has announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the OPEC+ format effective May 1, 2026, ending nearly six decades of membership. This marks the largest institutional disruption to the oil production coordination system since the establishment of the expanded OPEC+ format in 2016 and is perceived by the market as a
Abu Dhabi’s break with the cartel could flood markets, rattle prices, and redraw power lines from Riyadh to Moscow
The United Arab Emirates has announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the OPEC+ format effective May 1, 2026, ending nearly six decades of membership. This marks the largest institutional disruption to the oil production coordination system since the establishment of the expanded OPEC+ format in 2016 and is perceived by the market as a step towards weakening the group’s ability to influence global oil prices.
At the same time, the move reflects Abu Dhabi’s strategic course towards maximizing its own production and increasing its market share, while maintaining its image as a ‘responsible supplier’ and relying on the long‑term growth of global energy demand.
The UAE’s withdrawal objectively leads to the potential growth of global oil production, and as a consequence, to downward pressure on prices in the medium term – especially after the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz. It is already being described as one of the most notable institutional shifts in the energy market over the past decade. The Emirati authorities present this step as a “strategic re‑evaluation project” aligned with national economic interests, rather than a one‑off conflict over quotas.
From an economic perspective, the issue is not just about how many barrels Abu Dhabi and Dubai will produce but about the very architecture of global oil coordination. OPEC and OPEC+ are ceasing to be a monolith even in the formal sense: One of the largest and most flexible producers is moving into ‘independent mode’, transforming the market from a quota‑cartel structure into a more fragmented and sensitive one – a market driven not only by economics but also by geopolitics.
Why the UAE wanted out
In recent years, tensions have been building up between the UAE and Saudi Arabia over the issue of quota allocation within OPEC+. The UAE invested in expanding production capacity but was restricted in its ability to monetize it due to collective commitments to cut output. In fact, even before the official announcement in 2026, the UAE repeatedly signaled dissatisfaction with the level of its quotas and a desire for greater autonomy in making production decisions.
Official statements from the UAE government and Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei stress that the decision to withdraw from OPEC constitutes a sovereign political decision in the field of energy policy, adopted following a “prolonged and thorough review” of the national strategy. The official wording highlights several key motives:
Alignment with the UAE’s long‑term strategic and economic vision and the evolution of the country’s energy sector.
Primary emphasis on national interests and strategic priorities, ensuring the continued perception of the country as a responsible and reliable supplier.
The anticipated sustainable growth of global energy demand in the medium- and long-term perspective justifies the expansion of the UAE’s own production and investments in the capacity foundation.
The key economic factor behind the decision is the significant expansion of the UAE’s production capacity and the drive to fully monetize it outside the constraints of a rigid quota system.
It should be noted that the UAE’s current production stands at around 3.4-3.5 million barrels per day (bpd), with plans to increase capacity to 5 million bpd by 2027 through investments in upstream projects.
Over the past several years, the UAE has invested substantial resources in expanding its production base, including through the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, thereby enhancing both nominal capacity and the quality of its crude oil, as well as improving environmental performance (low carbon intensity). However, within OPEC and OPEC+, a portion of this capacity has effectively remained underutilized due to existing restrictions. This has caused economic dissatisfaction and prompted the search for a more flexible operating regime.
For the UAE, where GDP growth and fiscal sustainability are closely tied to hydrocarbon exports, the ability to more aggressively ramp up production as global demand recovers and grows is seen as a way to accelerate the monetization of resources ahead of a potential structural shift in demand towards low‑carbon sources. In this context, leaving OPEC is perceived by Abu Dhabi as a means of protecting national revenue from external constraints and the asymmetry of interests within the organization.
The primary economic motive for the UAE’s exit from OPEC can be summarized briefly: The country no longer intends to keep its production capacity within the limits set by the collective system when it believes it can produce and export more than the quotas allow. This has been explicitly stated by UAE officials, who point to the need to “revise production policy and strengthen autonomy in managing the oil and gas sector.”
The medium-term goal is to increase production by more than 30% and strengthen the UAE’s position as a key supplier to fast-growing Asian markets, including China and India. The authorities stress that OPEC quotas, at a time when the country is completing large-scale investment cycles in oil and gas projects, begin to look like an artificial brake on potential.
Against this backdrop, leaving OPEC appears to be part of a broader diversification strategy. The UAE is simultaneously developing traditional oil export flows, natural gas, petrochemicals, and low‑carbon sectors, including renewable energy. In this model, oil and gas are not an end in themselves but a source of capital for further diversification. Consequently, any restrictions on export volumes automatically slow down progress along this trajectory.
The financial benefits are clear. In the short and medium term, the country gains the opportunity to ramp up exports when prices are favorable, reallocate flows towards more solvent markets, and accelerate the implementation of infrastructure and petrochemical projects, using waves of high prices as a ‘capital catcher’.
This could lead to a significant increase in export revenue and faster accumulation of foreign exchange reserves – which is particularly important for an economy actively participating in global financial flows.
However, the economic risks are also significant.
Firstly, leaving OPEC weakens the collective market-stabilization mechanism, which increases price volatility. In an environment where oil prices become more erratic, budget planning becomes more challenging: Revenues fluctuate sharply, and fiscal buffers and reserve funds must be designed to accommodate a wider range of scenarios.
Secondly, the UAE partially loses the political weight and institutional influence that OPEC+ membership provided. Instead of jointly taking part in shaping the rules of the game, the UAE becomes a major but standalone player whose decisions are perceived by the market as an external factor rather than as part of an institutional consensus. This raises the risk that, in times of crisis, the UAE could be viewed as a destabilizing factor – which in turn could increase pressure from partners and regulators.
The exit from OPEC carries not only economic but also symbolic significance: It demonstrates the UAE’s readiness to pursue its own course amid the fragmentation of the regional security architecture and energy coordination.
Impact on global oil trade
From a supply-side perspective, the UAE’s departure implies the potential introduction of additional volumes into the market in the medium term – 1 to 1.5 million bpd – as production expands and transportation infrastructure is restored. Combined with a possible reaction from other producers, this leads to the following:
a reduction in the market’s overall fear of a supply deficit, and as a consequence, downward pressure on forward quotations.
a weakening of the influence of OPEC+ signals and strengthening of individual producers’ strategies.
a further shift in the market’s center of gravity towards competition among major independent players (the US and others).
From a short‑term perspective, the market could react to the UAE’s exit as a ‘risk shock’. Any news about quota revisions, increases in production volumes, or disruptions in logistics in the Strait of Hormuz area will amplify volatility. At the beginning of this scenario, both upward and downward price spikes are possible as market participants revise their forecasts regarding future supply levels and prices.
In the medium term, the key question is whether other producers will follow the UAE’s lead and whether real discipline will be maintained among the remaining OPEC+ members. If so, relative stabilization is possible – albeit with higher baseline volatility. If not, the market could shift to a mode in which supply is driven not by coordination but by individual decisions, leading to more frequent and severe price fluctuations.
For the global economy, this implies increased uncertainty in energy costs, more complex planning of investment programs, and higher risk premiums in financial markets. In importing countries, rising oil price instability exacerbates challenges in managing inflation and jeopardizes the sustainability of budgets and the balance of trade.
Russia’s challenges and opportunities
From a geoeconomic perspective, the UAE’s exit from OPEC fits into a broader trend of fragmentation in global energy governance and the growing role of regional and bilateral ties. For Russia, this creates both risks to budget revenues and an opportunity to deepen bilateral energy and financial-investment cooperation with the Emirates within the evolving architecture of the global oil market.
Regarding Russia’s reaction to the UAE’s withdrawal, the initial public response came from Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who directly linked it to the prospect of increased global production and lower prices in the future. According to him, the UAE’s departure means the country will be able to produce as much oil as capacity allows and bring it to the market without restrictions. If other OPEC countries begin to act in a similar way, total supply will rise and prices will fall.
Siluanov stressed that current prices are mainly supported by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the associated supply risks, while the surplus supply effect he projects will materialize once shipping is restored. At the same time, the Russian side explicitly notes the preservation of close relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, as well as its interest in continuing coordination within an expanded producer format even as OPEC+ weakens institutionally. This aligns with Russian energy diplomacy, which aims to maintain informal coordination channels and strengthen bilateral cooperation with key regional players. For Russia, this creates both challenges and opportunities.
Among the key challenges are the potential drop in oil prices, which directly affects budget revenues and development financing capabilities, and the weakening of collective coordination mechanisms through which Russia has been able to influence the market via OPEC+.
The opportunities include: Deepening energy, investment, and financial cooperation with the UAE as an increasingly independent geoeconomic player interested in diversifying its partners; developing joint projects in logistics (bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and using alternative routes), oil, and petroleum product trade, as well as in the area of sovereign wealth funds and payment infrastructure, with a focus on de-dollarization; Using the bilateral format to align approaches to market stabilization during critical moments – complementing, rather than replacing, formal OPEC+ mechanisms.
The UAE’s exit from OPEC and OPEC+ should not be interpreted as a collapse in prices or the outright disintegration of the cartel. Rather, it represents a transition to a new regime in which the role of collective quotas diminishes and the importance of national economic interests, geopolitical games, and individual market decisions increases.
For Russia, the key challenge is to adapt its budgetary and energy policies to a potential decline in prices amid rising supply, while simultaneously deepening strategic partnerships with the UAE and other major exporters in Asia and the Middle East. In the context of growing fragmentation in global energy governance, it is the combination of flexible domestic policy and active geoeconomic diplomacy that can mitigate risks and transform the structural shift into sources of additional influence and resilience.
Login
