Islamic State-linked fighters have reportedly withdrawn from Menaka after clashes with the army and allied forces

Malian forces have regained control of a key city in the north of the country after pushing Islamic State-linked militants to withdraw, local sources reported on Wednesday.

The insurgents, who earlier this week had seized Menaka, located on the Niger border, retreated following clashes with the army and its allied forces, Reuters reported, citing residents and a diplomatic source.

The pullback follows a series of coordinated attacks on military targets in the West African country on Saturday by fighters from Al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Tuareg-led Azawad Liberation Front (FLA). The authorities confirmed that Defense Minister General Sadio Camara died from injuries sustained when a suicide car bomb struck his residence during the offensive.

Read more

According to officials, Malian forces, supported by the Africa Corps, a Russian Defense Ministry unit deployed in Mali, repelled the militants’ attempt to seize military sites and key infrastructure. More than 200 militants were killed in the ensuing clashes and significant quantities of equipment were seized, Malian Chief of General Staff Oumar Diarra said on state TV on Sunday night.

Malian Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maiga said on Monday that the insurgents had attempted to overthrow the government and destabilize the country’s institutions with the “support of sponsors.” While he did not specify the sponsors, Russia’s Defense Ministry later issued a statement, alleging that the militant formations, numbering about 12,000 fighters, were trained with the involvement of Ukrainian and European mercenary instructors. It also described the assault as an attempted coup by JNIM and the FLA against Mali’s military-led government.

READ MORE: Russian forces pound Western-backed terrorists in Mali (VIDEOS)

The former French colony has been battling a deadly insurgency for more than a decade, a crisis that has spilled into neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger despite years of French military operations in the region. All three countries have expelled French forces, accused Paris of supporting terrorists and turned to Russia for security assistance.

Read more

On Tuesday, Russian Ambassador Igor Gromyko held talks in Bamako with Mali’s transitional leader, General Assimi Goita, over the latest militant violence. The envoy reaffirmed Moscow’s commitment to assisting Mali “in the fight against international terrorism,” state broadcaster ORTM reported.

In a televised address on Tuesday, Goita said Malian armed forces had regained control of the situation and vowed to neutralize those responsible for the April 25 attacks.

An operation in Lower Shabelle involved airstrikes and ground combat, with a senior militant commander among those killed

Somali government forces have killed more than 20 Al-Qaeda-linked militants during a coordinated military operation in the Lower Shabelle region, officials said on Wednesday.

The offensive, carried out over the past 72 hours with support from “international partners,” targeted the Bulo Abdalla area between Mubarak and Ugunji.

According to officials, the operation involved both ground combat and airstrikes, resulting in the deaths of 22 Al-Shabaab fighters, including a senior militant commander identified as Abdirahman Jeeri, who was accused of terrorizing local civilians.

The Somali Defense Ministry and army command said they intend to intensify operations in an effort to eliminate what they described as remaining elements of the group.

Read more

Al-Shabaab has waged an insurgency in the Horn of Africa country since 2007, seeking to overthrow the fragile federal government and establish its own rule based on a hardline interpretation of Sharia law. The group controls large swaths of land in Somalia’s southern and central regions, carrying out sporadic bombings and gun attacks on civilians and military infrastructure despite repeated offensives by national forces, African Union troops, and other foreign partners, including the US.

In March, Somali armed forces eliminated nine Al-Shabaab militants during an operation in the Lower Shabelle region. Earlier the same month, security forces also carried out two separate operations in which a total of 22 Al-Shabaab fighters were killed, according to military statements. The authorities also reported that government forces regained control of the Hawaadley area in the Middle Shabelle region, which had previously been held by Al-Shabaab militants.

READ MORE: ‘Key members’ of terrorist group killed in Somalia

In December, the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution extending the mandate of the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) until December 31, 2026.

“Adoption follows the recent extension of the Al-Shabaab sanctions regime. Taken together, these decisions demonstrate the Council’s continued determination to support Somalia in its fight against Al-Shabaab,” Archibald Young, UK ambassador to the UN General Assembly, said.

The British monarch’s trip showcases an alliance held together by shared complicity and decline

King Charles III has gone to Washington, ostensibly to help the transatlantic cousins celebrate getting rid of his predecessor George III 250 years ago. But being a royally gracious loser is, of course, only a pretext.

In reality, as The Economist, the premier British mouthpiece of transatlantic orthodoxy, has deplored, Charles’s mission is to salvage what’s left to be salvaged from the sinking “special relationship” between Washington and London.

That the relationship is in very bad shape is obvious from the compulsive manner in which Britain’s leader Keir Starmer keeps insisting that it still exists, while also emphasizing that he “will remain laser-focused on what is in the British national interest.”

Indeed, the abysmally unpopular Starmer has been subjected to so much typical Trump hazing that, as The Guardian notes, he may be enjoying “a vanishingly rare moment of public approval for his relatively robust response.”

Historically, the “special relationship” has certainly seen better days. It goes back a long way, even if the term itself was coined as late as 1946, when Winston Churchill needed a polite way of suggesting a political friendship with benefits: The British Empire was bankrupt and shrinking, and London was ready to submit to its former colonists in America in return for a new place as their permanent privileged sidekick in the beginning Cold War crusade against the Soviet Union.

Historically, the moderately sized island realm off Europe’s shores had laid the foundations for the continental behemoth across the Atlantic, even if – to be fair to the British – not deliberately but by strategic blunder. The bloody divorce between the rebellious colonists and the obstinate mother country – in many respects really a war between competing oligarchies, including plenty of slave holders and traders – has been imaginatively baked into the bedrock of US self-glorification as a war of independence and revolution.

It is true that, at first, the British were very cross indeed and returned in 1812 to burn the White House. When the Americans went to war with each other in the 1860s, Britain’s upper classes mostly rooted for the South, that is, for the break-up of the US. But even then, London was already cautious enough to maintain official neutrality.

Read more

Fast forward half a century and that turned out to have been a very wise decision. When the Germans fought for hegemony in the First World War and knocked out Russia – weakened by revolution – Berlin might well have won or, at least, achieved a stalemate peace against France and Britain, its key antagonists in the West. It was US intervention that, instead, ensured German defeat in 1918.

True, considering the consequences of that defeat and its shortsighted mismanagement by the victors, you don’t have to like the Kaiser’s Germany to wonder if Europe – and the world – would not have been better off if the Americans had stayed out, as eminent historian Dominic Lieven has long pointed out.

In any case, as things happened in the real world, there was a second German (and, this time, also Japanese) try for primacy, much worse than the first. Again, in the Second World War as well, over-extended Britain and the booming US were not only on the same side but formed a particularly close if unequal relationship.

The pattern continued during the subsequent Cold War and beyond, with American and British spies and soldiers often in cahoots to topple sovereign governments and replace them with authoritarian vassal regimes, including Iran in 1953, Chile twenty years later, Iraq in 2003, and Syria only recently, to name only a few cases.

Churchill’s very own American dream, in short, came true: While shedding its empire, a much-diminished Britain – really a middling power with debilitating manufacturing-base weakness – kept punching above its economic and geopolitical weight, due in large measure to having found a new niche as America’s junior accomplice.

There have been partial exceptions and mishaps. Britain, for instance, refused to send troops to help the US in Vietnam. Hardly remembered now, in other ways London did, however, consistently support Washington’s brutal and futile war, if on the sly. The greatest single debacle was, of course, the Suez in 1956, shorthand for a British-French-Israeli imperialist Blitzkrieg on Egypt that went sour when the US – and the Soviet Union – put the Zionist-colonialist marauders in their place. Then as well, a British monarch, Charles’s mother Elisabeth II, ended up making a very delicate trip to Washington.

Read more

And Suez brings us to today. Because if that combination of Western-Israeli scheming, crude lying and vicious aggression, a strategic waterway (the Suez Canal), and successful resistance by a country systematically demonized in Western mainstream media (Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt) looks familiar, then it’s because the Trumpist US regime has just produced an inadvertent re-enactment. This time, the heroic and effective resistance comes from Iran, the conniving war of aggression based on lies from Israel and its US auxiliaries, and the strategic waterway is, of course, the Strait of Hormuz.

There are many differences between the Suez in 1956 and the current war on Iran, too. What matters with regard to the American-British special relationship is that this time, it is the US that has gotten badly stuck in a failing war of aggression waged together with Israel. Britain has by no means “refused to take part,” as the New York Times has misinformed its readers. In reality, in letting the US use it as a launching pad for bombing Iran, London is the ever-trusty accomplice again, no better than Germany.

Yet the Starmer regime is trying to have it both ways by engaging in what are really shyster sophistries to mask its deep involvement, while rejecting Washington’s demands for even more collaboration. The upshot is that Starmer has tied himself into a pretzel to please Washington as much as he can without fearing for his own political skin, but that is not enough to satisfy America’s Donald Trump. “When we needed them, they weren’t there,” the president-in-dire-straits has growled.

There are other issues of discontent and sore spots between the “special relationship” partners: London is not amused at all that the Trump administration has cast doubt over its sovereignty over the Malvinas (AKA Falklands), an empire-remnant of some geopolitical significance that is much closer to Argentina (which also lays claim to them) than Britain. London’s plans for the Chagos Islands, home to British and American bases, have run into US opposition.

Britain used to have some special oomph being America’s poodle inside the EU, but Brexit put an end to that. At the same time, Washington does see London as part of Europe whenever Europe fails to satisfy Trump’s every whim, as over his urge for Greenland. In the US, it is precisely with the most MAGA Americans that Britain tends to have the worst image, caricatured as a hotbed of Islamism and anarchy, whereas in reality it’s an increasingly authoritarian hub of Zionist influence.

Read more

Opinion polls show that the disenchantment is more widespread: on both sides of the Atlantic, the cousins are growing to like each other less and less. Indeed, the British public has been largely unhappy about the king’s trip.

So, there’s much that is rotten in the “special relationship” between the former global empire and its current successor on its own trajectory of decline and decay. But that is not the only reason why things give off a fetid odor. The worst irony of them all is the fact that the US and Britain still do have important things in common, but they are even worse than what sets them apart. Both Washington and London have cultivated a pathologically close relationship with Israel, supporting the war-addicted apartheid state to the detriment of their own societies, countries, and national interest.

In the same vein, the elites of both London and Washington are, moreover, at the heart of the scandal around the pedophile criminal and conspirator – clearly on behalf of Israel – Jeffrey Epstein. King Charles and President Trump could exchange notes on how to spin the fall-out from the Epstein files, both for the royal family and for the American president himself. Indeed, one of the many recent bust-ups between the British government and Trump has been about Starmer’s criminally negligent – at the very best – appointment of yet another Epstein “customer,” the sinister powerbroker Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

Think about it: with all the bad blood between London and Washington, they still converge on complicity with a genocide and the state perpetrating it, and they can commiserate with each other over being stuck up to their necks in the worst, most disgusting, most politically disruptive scandal of the century. The “special relationship” stinks of corruption, whether in agreement or disagreement.

Ghanaian envoy Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah speaks to RT about his country’s enduring relations with Moscow and the sabotage of nationalist leaders

African nations are increasingly calling for a shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order for greater autonomy in shaping their partnerships. This approach aligns with Russia’s own foreign policy position, providing a basis for expanding cooperation between Moscow and the continent.

Ghana, whose relationship with Russia dates back to the Soviet era, has experienced both growth and setbacks in its ties with Moscow. The 1966 coup in the country, allegedly orchestrated with US involvement, led to an abrupt termination of a nuclear project that had seen the Soviet Union helping Ghana establish Africa’s first atomic energy plant.

Read more

The US sought to depose Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, due to his pro-Soviet policies and alleged anti-Western stance. This historic moment marked a turning point in Ghana-Russia relations, but the ties have since evolved into modern-day diplomatic and economic engagement.

The West African nation’s ambassador to Russia, His Excellency Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah, who presents himself as a product of long-standing Ghana-Russia ties, has been tasked with strengthening bilateral relations, in support of Ghana’s key initiatives, including the 24-Hour Economy ambition.

The envoy first arrived in Moscow as a medical student in 1980. After more than three decades, he returned to Russia, officially beginning his diplomatic tenure on January 15, 2026, when he presented his credentials to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In this exclusive interview, Jehu-Appiah discusses the enduring Russia-Ghana friendship from its Soviet-era roots and the impact of US interference, Russia’s non-colonial image and Africa’s rising frontier of opportunity, non-aligned stance amid Western pressure, the sabotage of African leaders who sought control of their countries’ resources, and why Ghanaian students should seize the opportunity to study in Russia.

Read more

‘The CIA, which had orchestrated the coup, went to the Russian Embassy and ransacked it’

Q: Ghana and Russia share a long history of diplomatic ties. How would you characterize the current state of bilateral relations between the two countries?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: Ghana’s relationship with Russia started during the Soviet Union era. Ghana had a strong relationship with the Soviet Union right from 1957 when we gained our independence. Our first president, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, made a trip to the Soviet Union, came to Moscow, and met Leonid Brezhnev, the secretary-general of the Communist Party. They had a good rapprochement between the two of them.

They signed beneficial agreements between Ghana and the Soviet Union. The first atomic energy plant project in Africa was initiated in Ghana. That contract was first agreed upon in 1961 but officially signed in 1963, and construction of the plant began in Accra [Ghana’s capital].

Unfortunately, Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown in 1966. Everything was abruptly stopped, and the equipment was removed from Ghana and sent to the US for study. Interestingly, after the coup, the CIA, which had orchestrated the coup, went to the Russian Embassy, ransacked it, and tried to find any evidence. They also ransacked the Chinese Embassy in Ghana to see if there was anything they could seize.

To cut a long story short, they took the equipment to the US for study. So, our relationship started very well. Similar to the Soviet Union, we had the Young Pioneers established in Ghana, and I was a member.

The Russian government at that time gave opportunities for Ghanaians to come and study here. We called them the “snowmen.” The snowmen came to study here right from the time of Kwame Nkrumah, and everything went well. Even after Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown, nothing was truncated. Our relationship continued to grow.

‘The current president did part of his studies in Moscow’

Q: Considering the shifting geopolitical landscape, are there any recent developments you consider especially significant in Ghana-Russia ties?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: Unfortunately, for the last ten years, until two years ago, the government in Ghana was not friendly to Russia, and so they made a lot of statements. For instance, our [former] president went to the US to talk about how Russians were supporting Burkina Faso, and that posed a challenge for Ghana. I think it was a very unfortunate statement.

But luckily for us, the current president, John Dramani Mahama, did part of his studies in Moscow, and he loves Russians. So the relationship has started to improve. The selling hand for me has been the fact that Russia, on its own, was able to invite Mahama, even when he was in opposition, and they supported him to launch his book, ‘My First Coup D’État’, translated into Russian. He came here [to Moscow] to launch it. So believe me, the relationship has been cordial.

I had an opportunity to meet President Vladimir Putin. And I told him that I want my president to visit this country on the 9th of May, that is Victory Day. For me, that would have sealed a good friendship between the two countries. But we are still working at it.

‘Russia did not colonize any country like other countries did’

Q: Russia’s increased engagement in Africa has raised questions about its strategic goals. How does Ghana view Russia’s growing presence?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: Do you know one thing about Russia that I like? They have never colonized any country. Russia did not colonize any country like other countries did. The geopolitics of the day meant some countries would not align with what the Soviet Union believed in. But now it has grown warmer and warmer.

Since I’ve been here, from October last year, I’ve attended several programs, and I realized that Russians have good intentions for Africa. And unfortunately, my country, Ghana, has not benefited much. But Russia has good relationships with Egypt, with Namibia, with South Africa. The BRICS, for instance. Some countries were voted to join BRICS. South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, they’ve joined. I was at a BRICS meeting in St. Petersburg last November, and I spoke at that program.

So, for me, the relationship is building up, it’s warming up. With the multipolar world and Russians going through a lot of sanctions, I think they’ve turned their attention to Africa. Ghana will start to benefit.

We used to call Ghana the gateway to Africa. But I said we should change it. We should make Ghana the gateway and the destination. Yeah, because we cannot be a gateway where other countries will be the destination.

I’m here to live the dream of my president, John Mahama, who said Ghana is open for business. Before I came here, I organized a business forum for Ghanaian investors who want to travel to Russia. I invited the Russian ambassador in Ghana, Sergey Berdnikov, to listen to what Ghanaians think.

There are a lot of things that Russians can get from Ghana – culture, tourism, gold, cocoa products. I also spoke about organizing an African tourist festival in Moscow so we can demonstrate what we have. Most Russians do not know what we have in Africa or what we have in Ghana. It [the engagement] should not be one direction. We should also have a situation where we can demonstrate what Ghana has for Russia.

Q: And how does Ghana view Russia’s role on the African continent and its influence within international organizations, like the UN?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: I attended the last African Union meeting in Addis Ababa in 2016, which I believe was the final one that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe attended. He made a passionate appeal to the UN, urging them to reconsider the composition of the organization, particularly the Security Council, and to give Africa a stronger voice.

When the UN was initially formed, only four African countries were involved. Today, Africa has 54 countries, so why do we still lack representation on the Security Council?

It is crucial that we move from a unipolar world to a multipolar one, where all our voices can be heard. Russia has always supported us with goodwill.

‘Russia is on the side of peace’

Q: Several African countries have faced mounting pressure from Western countries to reassess their growing ties with Moscow amid the Ukraine conflict. Despite this, the majority of the continent’s leaders have remained resolute in their non-aligned position. How does Ghana navigate its diplomatic relationships with Russia while balancing its long-standing ties with Western governments?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: We are a non-aligned country. The principle Ghana has maintained is to look forward, as Kwame Nkrumah said.

I lived through four presidents in the Soviet Union, right from Brezhnev to Gorbachev, and I knew what it stood for. I have read the history behind the relationship between Russia and Western Europe, NATO, and between Russia and Ukraine. It is a slippery area. Russia is on the side of peace, and I think that we will pray that a peaceful resolution will come to fruition.

So basically, Ghana’s relationship with any country is based on truth. Whichever partner wants to be peaceful, we want to go there. My president, Mahama, said we are resetting the economy. In resetting the economy, we need the whole world to join us. And Russia being Russia, and I know what it can do for other countries. I don’t want Ghana to be left out.

Read more

I would have thought that the whole of Africa should come together to fight one agenda. Africa has a huge population. We have all the mineral resources, human resources, and mineral resources. Africa is the world’s El Dorado, but it is not allowed to develop them.

Any leader who stood up to develop it, his life was truncated. I want to say, with Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo, he was killed just because he wanted to nationalize their resources. Kwame Nkrumah’s role was truncated just because they thought it was too much for the West. Look at what is happening to Burkina Faso right now, to the young man, [its military leader Ibrahim] Traore. I’m happy he’s getting a lot of support from Russia.

So, for development, we know where we should go; we should turn towards that area where they give us support.

Energy expertise

Q: Energy cooperation is one of the pillars of Ghana’s foreign policy, and Russia is regarded as a vital partner in this field. What do you think about Russia’s expertise in the energy sector?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: There is a program in which one of Ghana’s Ministry of Energy officials visited Russia for an energy forum. An agreement, or nearly signed agreement, has been made to introduce Russian technology to Ghana. One such initiative involves floating energy systems, where barges are placed on the sea or a lake to generate and supply energy to the rest of the country.

Several other initiatives are also underway. The Minister of Energy has had discussions with Russia, and I’m pleased to report that they will be returning this year to continue these talks.

Why Ghanaian students ‘should grab the opportunity’ to study in Russia

Q: Education is a cornerstone of Africa’s partnership with Russia. At the 2023 Russia-Africa summit, President Putin announced a significant increase in educational support, revealing that the number of federal scholarships for African students had risen by 150% over the past three years. What advice would you offer to Ghanaian youth who have the opportunity to study in Russia?

Dr. Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah: They should grab the opportunity with both hands; study the language and immerse themselves in the culture fully. In the field of medicine, for instance, there are a lot of new developments in Russia, and I believe that we should take advantage of that for our country.

We have been bombarded with Western propaganda, so most of them have turned away from the good from Russia. I studied medicine and Russian language here, and my wife met me here in the same school, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia.

I’ve traveled throughout the world to several places. I got the opportunity to go to Asia, went to Japan, and visited many other places, including the US, Canada, and several others.

I say the best place to live is Moscow. Not because I’m here as ambassador, but because of what I’ve experienced.

The jump follows reports of Donald Trump being ready to continue the blockade of Iranian ports “for months”

The price of Brent crude oil rose to $126 on Thursday as US-Iran talks stalled and reports that US President Donald Trump may extend the blockade of Iranian ports.

It hit $126.3 for the first time since March 2022, when the Ukraine conflict escalated. Prices later eased to $125.30. The price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil also rose 10.5% to $110.5 per barrel, as traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continues to face disruptions.

On Wednesday, media reports, citing White House officials, said Trump ordered a plan to prolong the blockade of Iranian ports “for months” in a bid to pressure Tehran to consent to a more favorable peace deal.

The Iranian authorities insisted that they will keep preventing vessels from the US and its allies from going through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for some 25% of global crude trade, for as long as the country is being harnessed.

Read more

Tehran has also warned that it is ready to launch “unprecedented military action” to lift the US blockade of its ports.

Later in the day, the head of US Central Command, Brad Cooper, is reportedly set to present plans for a potential renewed military action against Iran to US President Donald Trump. On Thursday, Axios reported, citing sources, that the moves by the Pentagon could include a “short and powerful” wave of strikes on the Islamic Republic’s infrastructure and other targets, the use of ground force to capture parts of the Strait of Hormuz to unblock shipping, and an operation by special forces to seize Iran’s enriched uranium.

There have been no direct meetings between the Americans and the Iranians since the failed talks in Islamabad in mid-April. Another round of negotiations had been expected to take place in the same location at the weekend, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly declined to meet Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

According to Pakistani sources, the sides continue to exchange messages aimed at working out a potential deal to end the conflict, which broke out after the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28.

READ MORE: OPEC loses key member: Will the oil bloc survive?

Earlier this week, uncertainty on the oil market was increased further by the United Arab Emirates, one of the world’s biggest oil exporters, announcing its withdrawal from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the wider OPEC+ on May 1. According to Abu Dhabi, the decision is driven by national interests and is part of a long-term strategy and a “sovereign, strategic choice” aimed at giving it more flexibility over oil output.

The Russian foreign minister will attend a full-format two-day event in New Delhi

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit India in May for the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting, Moscow has confirmed.

India is the current chair of the group.

“A substantive and in-depth discussion of current international issues and prospects for improving the global governance system” is expected during Lavrov’s visit, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

Preparations for the 18th BRICS Summit, to be held in New Delhi in September, which Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely to attend, will also be on the agenda.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also slated to visit Moscow later this year.

Lavrov will also engage in bilateral talks with Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar. “We plan to discuss the full range of bilateral relations, including the schedule of upcoming contacts at the highest, high and working levels,” Zakharova said.

Read more

New Delhi is set to receive the fourth unit of the S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system from Russia in May, PTI reported on Tuesday.

In October 2018, India signed a $5 billion deal with Russia to buy five units of the missile systems, of which three have already been delivered. New Delhi also reportedly plans to place new orders.

Negotiations for the supply and production of the Su-57 fighter jet in the South Asian nation are at a “deep technical stage,” Vadim Badekha, CEO of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), said in January.

Russia is keen to receive “an unlimited number” of skilled workers from India as part of a labor mobility pact signed during Putin’s visit to India last December.

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 American 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.

Read more

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 slammed the reopening of the country’s early 20th century pavilion at the prestigious art festival

Italy’s Culture Ministry is investigating the Venice Biennale, the world's most prestigious art festival, after event organizers announced that Russia would be allowed to return to the event after a 4 year ban, Italian media reported on Wednesday.

Russia’s group exhibition, “The tree is rooted in the sky,” will be accessible to the press and industry elite during the Biennale’s preview. The exhibition’s “public” run, despite being scheduled from May 9th to November 22nd, will be strictly closed to the general public, event organizers have announced.

Practically all Western cultural institutions have cut ties with Russia since February 2022 over the Ukraine conflict. Artists, performers, conductors, as well as globally recognised Russian theatrical, orchestral and balletic classics have been struck from theatre rosters in what the Kremlin has dismissed as a pointless attempt to “cancel” Russian culture.

According to Corriere della Sera, following the announcement that the Russian pavilion would reopen, and the EU's subsequent withdrawal of $2.3 million in funding for the event, inspectors were dispatched to the Biennale Foundation to examine documents and financial records related to the planned reopening. Newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano reported that no “irregularities” were found in terms of compliance with sanctions imposed on Russia.

Read more

Officials were also reportedly instructed to review documents related to the pavilions of Iran and Israel. The Jewish sate’s full program is scheduled to go ahead, despite widespread objections from the artistic community.

The European Commission condemned the decision to allow Russia reopen its national pavilion – a complex designed and built in 1913-14 using 17th and 18th Century Russian architectural motifs – that was last year handed over to the event “for cooperation and visibility for activities dedicated to universities, schools, families, and the general public as part of La Biennale’s Educational program.”

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.”

Italian 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.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticized the EU's funding cut, calling it “a relapse into anti-culture, a condition that the West has been suffering from in recent years.” In remarks made to TASS, she warned: “Unless they cure it, they’ll remain uncultured forever.”

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 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.

Read more

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.

Read more

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 Club and 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 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.

Read more

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.

READ MORE: Moscow vows to aid Cuba amid US blockade

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 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.”  

Read more

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.