The incident resulted in a fire on the plane and the evacuation of passengers
A Frontier Airlines flight from Denver International Airport had to be aborted after the jet struck and killed an unknown person on the runway during takeoff, local officials have said.
The trespasser was hit by the plane two minutes after jumping the perimeter fence late on Friday, according to the airport. Videos from the scene captured the damaged engine blades, sugg
The incident resulted in a fire on the plane and the evacuation of passengers
A Frontier Airlines flight from Denver International Airport had to be aborted after the jet struck and killed an unknown person on the runway during takeoff, local officials have said.
The trespasser was hit by the plane two minutes after jumping the perimeter fence late on Friday, according to the airport. Videos from the scene captured the damaged engine blades, suggesting that the trespasser had been sucked into the turbine.
”We’re stopping on the runway,” the pilot told the control tower. “We just hit somebody. We have an engine fire… An individual was walking across the runway.”
An air traffic controller was heard warning his colleagues that the runway was closed after the incident, saying: “I do have limbs on the runway… I’ve got what appears to be a deceased person on the runway.” One of the first responders was also heard telling control that “there does appear to be human remains on the runway.”
The collision resulted in an engine fire and forced an evacuation of passengers via slides as smoke filled the cabin of the narrow-body Airbus A321 aircraft. Twelve of the 224 passengers on board suffered minor injuries in the incident, with five of them requiring hospitalization.
INCRÍVEL:::: IMAGENS FORTES:::: Pra você entender o que aconteceu com o voo da Frontier Airlines em Denver ontem à noite.
Um homem pulou a cerca do aeroporto às 23h17.
Às 23h19 — apenas 2 minutos depois — ele foi atingido por um Airbus A321 totalmente carregado, em velocidade… pic.twitter.com/oX8VzUAihr
The passengers were able to film the exact moment of the collision and the evacuation process. One of the witnesses told KUSA-TV that the jet lifted off the ground for a split second, but landed again after hitting something.
The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman hit back, saying Europe would be a “concentration camp” without the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has hit back at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz after he criticized Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico for attending Victory Day celebrations in Moscow.
Merz said he “deeply regretted” Fico’s trip and claimed it did not reflect the EU’s “common view,” spe
The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman hit back, saying Europe would be a “concentration camp” without the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has hit back at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz after he criticized Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico for attending Victory Day celebrations in Moscow.
Merz said he “deeply regretted” Fico’s trip and claimed it did not reflect the EU’s “common view,” speaking at a press conference in Stockholm on Saturday.
“We will talk with him about this day in Moscow today,” he said. “We are celebrating Europe Day here in Stockholm today. And this is something completely different.”
When asked to comment on Merz’s remarks, Zakharova argued that modern Europe would not exist without the Soviet sacrifice that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.
“There would be no Europe Day without the victory of the Soviet people. There would only be one vast concentration camp with gas chambers,” she said in an interview with RIA Novosti later the same day.
The spokeswoman added that despite numerous attempts “to save them,” EU nations “always reorganize themselves into a concentration camp.”
Fico, who has long opposed Brussels’ stance toward Moscow, including military aid to Kiev and anti-Russian sanctions, was the only EU leader to attend the Victory Day commemorations in person this year.
Despite Lithuania and Latvia refusing his aircraft access to their airspace, the Slovak leader insisted he would still travel to Russia, saying the Baltic states would not prevent him from paying tribute to those who liberated Slovakia from Nazi occupation.
After the official part of the event, Fico held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and several senior officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak, and presidential aide Yury Ushakov.
Putin praised Fico’s “unwavering stance on preserving the historical truth about the events of the Second World War and the Red Army’s role in liberating Europe from Nazism,” and highlighted the contribution of Slovak resistance fighters to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
The Russian president also thanked Slovakia for preserving Soviet war memorials and burial sites, noting that the official opening of a Red Army military cemetery in Michalovce is expected soon.
The procession carried photos of relatives who fought Nazi Germany in WWII
Clashes broke out in the Spanish city of Barcelona after several protesters attempted to disrupt a Victory Day commemoration marking the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat.
Victory Day is celebrated annually in Russia and most former Soviet republics on May 9 with military parades and Immortal Regiment marches, during which participants carry photographs of relative
The procession carried photos of relatives who fought Nazi Germany in WWII
Clashes broke out in the Spanish city of Barcelona after several protesters attempted to disrupt a Victory Day commemoration marking the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat.
Victory Day is celebrated annually in Russia and most former Soviet republics on May 9 with military parades and Immortal Regiment marches, during which participants carry photographs of relatives who fought in World War II.
Footage filmed in Barcelona on Saturday showed people carrying Russian and Soviet flags as they peacefully gathered for the event before a counter-protester carrying a black-and-white banner approached the crowd, shouting derogatory slogans.
The provocation escalated into a physical altercation, after which the protesters fled before police intervened. The procession later continued through the city, with patriotic songs playing in the background.
“It is a very important day for our people. It is a day of remembrance for our grandparents who died during World War II,” one participant said.
“This day means a lot – survival for us Slavs, Russians, Ukrainians, and most people of the world,” another added.
The Immortal Regiment was first held in the Siberian city of Tomsk in 2012 and quickly spread across Russia and other countries. The initiative has since become popular among Russian-speaking communities living abroad.
This year, commemorative events took place in several countries, including India, Bangladesh, Kuwait, China, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, the US, and multiple cities across the EU.
In Geneva, members of the Ukrainian community wrapped in national flags attempted to interfere with the celebration by shouting nationalist slogans and singing Ukrainian songs near the closing stages of the event.
A similar incident took place in Amsterdam during an Immortal Regiment march on May 2, when several Ukrainian nationals attempted to disrupt the procession by shouting anti-Russian slogans while carrying placards splashed with red paint.
Around 27 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, one of the highest death tolls suffered by any nation in the conflict. Moscow has repeatedly accused the US and EU member states of distorting historical truth and belittling the crucial role of the USSR.
The IDF reportedly attacked and killed Iraqi troops who discovered the outpost
Israel secretly built a military outpost in the Iraqi desert to support its air campaign against Iran and even launched strikes on Iraqi troops who nearly discovered it, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing US officials familiar with the matter.
The clandestine base was set up shortly before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran in lat
The IDF reportedly attacked and killed Iraqi troops who discovered the outpost
Israel secretly built a military outpost in the Iraqi desert to support its air campaign against Iran and even launched strikes on Iraqi troops who nearly discovered it, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing US officials familiar with the matter.
The clandestine base was set up shortly before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran in late February, according to the report.
The US was reportedly aware of the installation, which housed Israeli special forces, served as a logistics hub for the Israeli Air Force, and hosted search-and-rescue teams in case Israeli pilots were shot down.
The outpost was nearly exposed in early March after a local shepherd noticed “unusual military activity,” including helicopter flights, and alerted authorities. Iraqi soldiers then moved to investigate the site but came under heavy fire. The attack left one Iraqi soldier dead and two others wounded.
Baghdad initially blamed Washington after security forces found evidence that foreign military personnel had been operating in the area.
“It appears there was a certain force on the ground before the strike, supported from the air, operating beyond the capabilities of our units,” Lt. Gen. Qais Al-Muhammadawi, deputy commander of Iraq’s Joint Operations Command, told Iraqi state media after the March attack. “This reckless operation was carried out without coordination or approval.”
The base reportedly helped Israel fight a long-range air war against Iran, whose territory lies over 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from Israel.
Israeli aircraft carried out thousands of strikes during the five-week campaign, while the Iraqi desert outpost gave Israeli teams a forward position closer to the battlefield.
The IDF did not comment on the latest report, which adds to growing scrutiny of how Israel’s confrontation with Iran has expanded into a broader regional conflict, pulling the US deeper into hostilities.
Former US counterterrorism chief Joe Kent, who resigned in protest in March, has accused Israel of driving Washington into a war despite US intelligence assessments that Tehran was not actively building a nuclear weapon.
Kent claimed that US agencies had warned Iran would retaliate by targeting American bases and attempting to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. He argued that the Israeli narrative about the Iranian threat ultimately “won the argument” in Washington, forcing the US into the conflict.
Trump administration officials have denied that Israel dragged Washington into the war. US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this week that President Donald Trump acted based on “American interests” and his “America First” policy, dismissing the idea that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had pulled the US into the conflict as a “false premise.”
The passengers of the MV Hondius are set to be medically assessed and evacuated under strict protocols after the vessel reaches Tenerife, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said
The arrival of the hantavirus-stricken MV Hondius cruise ship off Spain’s Tenerife poses little risk of contagion to local residents, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said.
The Dutch-flagged Atlantic liner, carrying 147 passengers and
The passengers of the MV Hondius are set to be medically assessed and evacuated under strict protocols after the vessel reaches Tenerife, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said
The arrival of the hantavirus-stricken MV Hondius cruise ship off Spain’s Tenerife poses little risk of contagion to local residents, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said.
The Dutch-flagged Atlantic liner, carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries, suffered an outbreak of the Andes strain of hantavirus, a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings, urine, or saliva.
The distressed vessel, dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, departed from Argentina for Cape Verde on April 1. The first victim, a 70-year-old Dutch man, began showing signs of illness on April 6 and died on April 11. His 69-year-old wife accompanied his body to South Africa, where she later also succumbed to the disease in a Johannesburg hospital on April 26. A third passenger, a German woman, died from the illness on May 2.
Unlike most hantaviruses, the Andes strain is known to be capable of limited human-to-human transmission through close contact with an infected person. There is no known cure for the disease caused by the virus, with symptomatic treatment being the only recourse.
However, Ghebreyesus assured Tenerife residents that hantavirus, while “serious,... is not another COVID.”
“The risk to you, living your daily life in Tenerife, is low. This is the WHO’s assessment, and we do not make it lightly,” he wrote in a letter on Saturday.
There are “no symptomatic passengers on board” the MV Hondius at present, according to Ghebreyesus, with a WHO expert monitoring the situation on the ship. The WHO has reported eight cases linked to the vessel, including three deaths, with six confirmed as hantavirus and two still considered suspected. Authorities are also trying to trace more than two dozen people who disembarked before the outbreak was confirmed.
The WHO director-general added that the passengers “will be ferried ashore at the industrial port of Granadilla, far from residential areas, in sealed, guarded vehicles, through a completely cordoned-off corridor, and repatriated directly to their home countries.”
Ghebreyesus arrived on the Spanish island to personally oversee the operation and again reassured residents that the risk was low during a short briefing alongside Spanish Health Minister Monica Garcia.
Face-to-face negotiations can take place, but only after a final long-term peace agreement is fully prepared, the Russian president has stressed
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that a meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could take place “anywhere,” including in a third country, but only after a final long-term peace agreement is fully prepared and ready for signing. “The Ukrainian side and Mr. Zelensky, they are ready to have a p
Face-to-face negotiations can take place, but only after a final long-term peace agreement is fully prepared, the Russian president has stressed
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that a meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could take place “anywhere,” including in a third country, but only after a final long-term peace agreement is fully prepared and ready for signing.
“The Ukrainian side and Mr. Zelensky, they are ready to have a personal meeting... We have never refused,” Putin said during a press conference after Victory Day celebrations on May 9. “We can meet in the third country as well, but only after there is an ultimate agreement regarding a peace deal that must be a long-term deal.”
He stressed that the meeting should be the “final thing,” the signing ceremony, and not turn into negotiations. Recalling the Minsk Accords experience, Putin noted: “We can speak hours, day and night and it would yield no results. We need specialists to take care of that... then we can meet, we can sign.”
During the same May 9 briefing, Putin declared that the Ukraine conflict “is heading towards the end.”
These remarks came one day after US President Donald Trump expressed hope that the ceasefire declared by Moscow on May 8 could lead to the fighting wrapping up soon.
Last December, Putin reiterated that Russia seeks a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict provided its root causes are eliminated.
The celebrations in Ivangorod drew crowds of spectators in neighboring Narva, who gathered on the embankment of the river dividing the cities
Crowds of people gathered in the Estonian city of Narva to watch the Victory Day concert and fireworks display held in Russia’s Ivangorod, situated just across the border.
The Estonian authorities banned Victory Day celebrations on May 9, penalizing anyone seen with Soviet or Russian-themed symbols, such as
The celebrations in Ivangorod drew crowds of spectators in neighboring Narva, who gathered on the embankment of the river dividing the cities
Crowds of people gathered in the Estonian city of Narva to watch the Victory Day concert and fireworks display held in Russia’s Ivangorod, situated just across the border.
The Estonian authorities banned Victory Day celebrations on May 9, penalizing anyone seen with Soviet or Russian-themed symbols, such as the Ribbon of Saint George.
One of the spectators on the Estonian side of the Narva river told RT on Sunday that compared to previous years, even more people had come to the embankment to see the event. The person said that Victory Day “has always been the most important holiday for us, no matter what.”
The person added that his boss at work had objected to him going to watch the Victory Day concert, but he went anyway. He explained to RT that his own relatives had fought against Nazi Germany, adding that the “desire to pay homage to our heroes beats fear of any potential punishment” from the Estonian authorities.
As the celebrations unfolded across the river, some Narva residents lit lanterns in greeting to their neighbors in Ivangorod, according to footage sent to RT by a subscriber. She said the gesture has become a local tradition dating back to the coronavirus pandemic, when border crossings became difficult.
The municipal authorities in Ivangorod told TASS that people across the border were able to watch the event, named ‘The Riverbanks of Victory’ thanks to a large screen mounted on the Russian side of the river. Similar concerts have been held in Ivangorod since 2023.
According to the news agency, citing Ivangorod and Narva residents, many people in Estonia spent several hours in lines at the border just to watch the celebrations on the Russian side.
Aleksandr Drozdenko, the governor of Leningrad Region, where Ivangorod is located, previously told TASS that it was particularly important to the regional authorities that the “concert is also being heard on the other side of the Narva River.”
“We know that there are people there, to whom Victory Day is just as important, and they are waiting for this day,” the Russian official said. According to Drozdenko, “on both riverbanks, people are singing our common songs familiar from childhood,” in what he described as “people’s karaoke.”
The celebration culminated in a bright fireworks display over Ivangorod, watched from both banks of the river.
Meanwhile, the Estonian police reported that at least 20 administrative cases related to Victory Day celebrations were initiated on Sunday, as reported by Delfi media outlet. Most of those involved displays of banned symbols.
The Russian president has said he could meet with Vladimir Zelensky once final agreements have been reached
Victory Day celebrations across Russia and around the world concluded on May 9, while President Vladimir Putin wrapped up a series of meetings with foreign leaders who came to Moscow and spoke to journalists about the Ukraine conflict, Russia-China ties, and other international issues.
“I think the matter is heading towards the completion o
The Russian president has said he could meet with Vladimir Zelensky once final agreements have been reached
Victory Day celebrations across Russia and around the world concluded on May 9, while President Vladimir Putin wrapped up a series of meetings with foreign leaders who came to Moscow and spoke to journalists about the Ukraine conflict, Russia-China ties, and other international issues.
“I think the matter is heading towards the completion of the Ukrainian conflict,” the Russian leader said while answering questions from the press. He also did not rule out a possible meeting with Vladimir Zelensky in a third country once final agreements on a settlement are reached.
Here are some further highlights from Putin’s remarks:
Western elites fighting Russia with Ukrainian hands
Putin stated that it is the globalist faction of Western elites that is effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies.
“We need to make sure that no one is threatening us. This is our goal,” Putin said when asked about the parameters of peace negotiations. He emphasized that Moscow is well aware of Western assistance to Ukraine, particularly with drone technology, but noted that the other side is now looking for ways to establish contact, fully understanding that further escalation could be very costly.
US President Donald Trump recalled the common struggle against Nazism during the leaders’ last phone call in late April, when Putin informed him of Russia’s plan to declare a ceasefire for May 8 and 9.
“President Trump supported it,” Putin said. Russia publicly announced the truce, but Kiev instead proposed a ceasefire starting on May 6, which it apparently had no intention of upholding.
The Ukrainian military violated the Victory Day ceasefire on 8,970 occasions after Moscow ordered all of its troops along the front line in Ukraine to halt combat operations and remain in their positions, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
Moscow warned partners about possible retaliatory strike on Kiev
The Russian leader emphasized that Moscow has no desire to escalate or worsen relations with anyone, and that it repeatedly warned its foreign partners about the possible consequences of Kiev’s provocations on Victory Day.
After Zelensky issued several veiled threats, the Russian Defense Ministry warned that a retaliatory strike on central Kiev would be carried out if attempts were made to disrupt Victory Day events in Moscow, and urged residents and diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital in advance.
Putin pointed out that all key Ukrainian government and military decision-making centers are located in central Kiev, in close proximity to dozens of foreign diplomatic missions. He said Russia clearly outlined the potential scenario that could unfold, first warning key partners such as China and India.
Moscow also informed Washington about the possible consequences, which Putin believes contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative.
Ukraine yet to respond to Trump’s POW exchange initiative
Moscow sent Kiev a list of 500 Ukrainian prisoners of war and proposed an exchange back on May 5, but has yet to receive a response, Putin said. When Trump later announced an even larger 1,000-for-1,000 POW swap, “we supported it right away,” Putin added.
According to the Russian president, Ukraine said it needed time to review the proposal and later stated that it was “not prepared” for the exchange.
Putin explains absence of military vehicles at Victory Day parade
Putin confirmed that this year’s Victory Day parade in Moscow featured no military equipment primarily so that the Russian Armed Forces could fully concentrate on achieving the final defeat of the Ukrainian army.
“We decided that we would definitely hold festive events, but without the demonstration of military equipment. Not only due to security concerns, but above all because the armed forces must focus their attention on the final defeat of the enemy,” Putin said.
The president added that the decision was taken long before any provocative statements from the Ukrainian authorities. The parade on May 9 still included marching servicemen and an aviation flyover.
Putin hopes for restoration of ties with West in future
Putin expressed confidence that Russia would restore relations with many Western countries in the future, even as he blamed Western politicians for triggering the Ukraine conflict.
Seeking to use Ukraine as an instrument of their geopolitical goals, these Western figures deceived everyone, and they’re now publicly admitting it... And they began deceiving us about the West’s eastward expansion back in the early 1990s... All of this, taken together, provoked today’s situation.
The Russian leader stressed that Moscow had never closed the door to negotiations with the EU or Ukraine and mentioned former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as a preferred intermediary for dialogue.
Moscow had proposed assisting in resolving the Iranian nuclear program issue, including through the export of enriched uranium, as it had successfully done before. Putin noted that this earlier effort played a positive role in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the now-defunct 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran.
According to the president, the United States, Iran, and Israel initially agreed to the idea. However, both Washington and Tehran later hardened their positions: the US demanded that the uranium be sent only to its territory, while Iran proposed creating a joint Russian-Iranian enterprise on its own soil to dilute the uranium. As a result, the situation has reached a complete deadlock.
Moscow will prevail in the Ukraine conflict, which is a Western proxy war, RIAC’s chief has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi
Europe has become Russia’s “principal adversary” for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), Dmitry Trenin, has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.
In the latest episode of Going Underground, the renowned international af
Moscow will prevail in the Ukraine conflict, which is a Western proxy war, RIAC’s chief has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi
Europe has become Russia’s “principal adversary” for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), Dmitry Trenin, has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.
In the latest episode of Going Underground, the renowned international affairs expert said that “today, Russia is at war again, and this is not simply a war between Russia and Ukraine” but rather a proxy war against Moscow that is being waged by the West.
According to Trenin, while the US under President Donald Trump has increasingly distanced itself from the Ukraine conflict, European involvement has become progressively more prominent of late. He told Rattansi that elites in European capitals are using a perceived Russian threat in an apparent effort to consolidate the “crumbling” European Union and to “relaunch their economies through militarization.”
“They’re trying, above all, to keep themselves in power” by pushing alarmist narratives regarding Russia, he added.
Trenin went on to describe Ukrainians as a “part of the bigger Russian nation” that is being “misguided” and “used by the West in [its]… very long war against Russia,” which dates as far back as the 16th century.
The international affairs expert expressed confidence that Russia would eventually accomplish its goals in the conflict, though it would take a long time. He defined Russia’s vision of victory as the vanquishing of neo-Nazi elements within Ukraine, as well as “those forces in Europe, primarily among the elites, that have built Russia into a bogeyman again.”
Commenting on Trump’s attempts at mediation, Trenin claimed that the US president is “essentially powerless to insist on something that is of central importance to ending this conflict,” and so his role is rather limited in defining its course. According to the RIAC president, Trump has apparently been unable to get EU warmongers and the Ukrainian leadership to act on the understanding reached by him and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, last August.
Robert Fico’s country turns fractures in Europe’s order into leverage, using ‘glitch art’ diplomacy in weaving its way between Brussels and Moscow
At 6:00 PM on May 8, 2026, the plane carrying Robert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister and leader of the Direction – Social Democracy party (SMER-SD), landed in Moscow. This fact was covered in great detail by both Russian and European media, and for good reason.
A week earlier, Lithuania and Poland had
Robert Fico’s country turns fractures in Europe’s order into leverage, using ‘glitch art’ diplomacy in weaving its way between Brussels and Moscow
At 6:00 PM on May 8, 2026, the plane carrying Robert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister and leader of the Direction – Social Democracy party (SMER-SD), landed in Moscow. This fact was covered in great detail by both Russian and European media, and for good reason.
A week earlier, Lithuania and Poland had officially stated that they would not allow Fico’s plane to pass through their airspace on its way to the Russian capital. In order to avoid taking a long detour, Slovakia’s air route was reluctantly provided by Germany, Sweden, and Finland.
For Robert Fico, who has served as Slovakia’s prime minister since 2023 (and previously in 2006-2010 and 2012-2018), this was his third trip to the Russian capital for Victory Day celebrations. The first was back in 2015, when Fico marked the 70th anniversary of victory alongside then-Czech Prime Minister Miloš Zeman. The context of that parade was dramatic: despite the milestone anniversary, the 2015 parade cemented a shift in the list of high-ranking guests, in which Western leaders came to make up the smallest possible share.
At that time, a new participation format was introduced: leaders did not attend the stands on Red Square to watch the parade of Russian elite troops and equipment, but instead appeared only for the laying of flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier near the Kremlin walls. Thus, during the 2015 parade itself, Fico and Zeman held a working meeting and joined later for the Minute of Remembrance.
Fico’s second visit, on May 9, 2025, cost him dearly in terms of electoral support. The 80th anniversary of victory, along with the relatively strong personal ratings of Fico and his party, encouraged the prime minister to attend the parade. The consequences were swift: SMER-SD’s rating fell from 24% to 18%, its lowest level in the preceding three years of Fico’s time in office. Protests took place in Bratislava, and were attended by up to 60,000 people. It would seem that a tough lesson should have been learned – and yet the charismatic Fico is in Moscow once again.
To understand the Slovak leader’s motives, one has to look closely at Slovakia’s domestic political landscape and the foreign policy meetings Fico has held in recent months. At the beginning of February, the country declared a state of emergency in the oil sector in connection with the cutoff of Russian oil transit through Ukraine.
Officially, the issue was said to be pipeline damage in Ukraine. However, the leaders of Slovakia and Hungary (which also was not receiving Russian oil) stated that the problem was rooted in Kiev’s political decisions. Interruptions in energy supplies for Slovakia threaten disruptions to key industrial sectors concentrated in automobile manufacturing, which accounts for about 13% of the country’s GDP and nearly half of the republic’s total exports.
These include plants such as Jaguar Land Rover in Nitra and KIA in Žilina. Because of their production needs, they are critically dependent on deliveries of industrial diesel products and plastics (petrochemical products) from Slovakia’s only oil refinery, Slovnaft. In terms of direct employment, about 9,000 families work at the plants in Nitra and Žilina. Further along the chain, one job on the assembly line creates up to four jobs among suppliers (logistics, seating, plastics, catering). Thus, the real dependency rises to 35,000-40,000 people. Beyond them, other key players in the market – Volkswagen Bratislava, Volvo in Košice, and others – would also begin to stall because of energy shortages. Altogether, another 230,000 or so people are employed in this broader sector.
At the same time, for Fico, who has crossed the midpoint of his current term as prime minister, it is extremely important to prepare for the next electoral campaign, which will culminate in September 2027 – both to avoid alienating the party’s core voter base and to expand its support beyond it. That can be achieved only by preventing serious political and economic crises like the oil sector emergency that occurred in February of this year.
A second important factor is Fico’s recent foreign-policy meetings. Among the most resonant was the European Political Community summit in Yerevan on May 4, 2026. During the event, the attention of the Russian audience was focused on the Slovak leader’s closed-door meeting with Zelensky, where support for Ukraine’s accession to the EU was discussed. After the meeting, Fico said he would convey Ukrainian proposals to the Russian leader during talks following the Victory Day celebrations on May 9. We can assume that a “package of proposals,” or ultimatum, on transit issues will be transmitted via the Slovak leader. Yet precisely such an approach legitimizes Fico’s trip to Russia for the Victory Day celebrations, with Brussels’ silent consent.
It is customary to think that the relatively good relations which exist between Slovakia and Russia are grounded in pragmatism and cheap energy prices. But today’s reality is deeper. Slovaks are warmer and more rational than their neighbors in the Visegrád region. Having always played second fiddle in the history of great empires and middle states – Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia – they learned clearly that ideology is expensive, while survival requires intelligence and flexibility. This understanding enables Slovakia to find ways to make lemonade out of lemons. It should be noted that this brings results: a country which, because of its geographic position, historical circumstances, and energy problems, could be considered an outsider in European politics, is becoming its cyberpunk.
In cyberpunk, life unfolds simultaneously in two incompatible realities according to the principle of “Low Life, High Tech,” using system errors that ultimately form of glitch art – the art of digital interference. Its expressive means are bugs, noise, and wave distortions of the image. Thus, glitch-art diplomacy can be described as the foreign policy of a state that is consciously or forcibly built on protocol violations, unpredictability, and the use of systemic errors. In other words, if classical diplomacy is the polished skill of negotiations and playing by the rules, then “glitch diplomacy” is the aesthetics of apparent chaos, behind which stands a thoughtful, if simple, system.
It is precisely in this way that the foreign policy of modern Slovakia should be viewed. In the eyes of the nation, Robert Fico is a hero who breaks the binary European logic of ‘friend/enemy’ by building a bridge between West and East. In Russian discourse, it is emphasized that most European countries have ‘lost their agency’ by adhering to the shared algorithms of Brussels and Washington. Slovakia, by contrast, is capable of acting outside these algorithms, which is regarded as constructive pragmatism.
In the EU’s binary coordinate system, Slovakia is viewed more as its own systemic error. Since it is one of ‘theirs’, it can be corrected and managed. This is precisely the message Fico will voice in Moscow – and no matter how ultimatum-like or harsh it may be – this makes the Slovak leader’s policy acceptable to Brussels. In this way, Slovakia remains a small but critically important node through which East and West continue to exchange signals.
Wartime legacy underpins a strategic partnership rooted in civilizational respect, not just realpolitik
As Russia marks the 81st anniversary of its victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, the ensuing global conflicts are a grim reminder of the lessons learned (or lost) over the last century. While the Indian Republic joins its strategic partner in celebrating the defeat of fascism, it is worth retracing the common thread of civilizational hist
Wartime legacy underpins a strategic partnership rooted in civilizational respect, not just realpolitik
As Russia marks the 81st anniversary of its victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, the ensuing global conflicts are a grim reminder of the lessons learned (or lost) over the last century. While the Indian Republic joins its strategic partner in celebrating the defeat of fascism, it is worth retracing the common thread of civilizational history that the two giants share.
During the World War II, both Soviet and Indian troops (under British command) contributed decisively towards the defeat of the Axis forces. During the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Indian and Soviet divisions coordinated their operations to secure the Persian corridor linking the Allies to the USSR. Elsewhere, while the Soviet forces fought the bulk of the German armies in the Eastern European theater, Indian contingents fought the Axis in the South-East Asian, North African, West Asian theaters, as well as playing a critical, often under-recognized role in the Allied invasion of Italy.
Simultaneously, Indian leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose sought to secure external support in their fight for independence. In his efforts to secure cooperation, his first port of call in 1941 was to the Soviet Union. Being unsuccessful he made his appeal to the Germans and the Japanese. Nevertheless, he was appalled at the German invasion of the USSR and in June 1941, declared that Indians had come to regard the ‘Third Reich’ as an aggressor. He believed that the USSR would ultimately become Britain’s adversary in the future and died in 1945 in pursuit of greater collaboration with Moscow.
Subhas Chandra Bose was not the only leader aspiring to closer ties with the USSR. Russia had long been part of a utopian hope, and when Indians thought about progress and development, they looked to Russia for inspiration.
Jawaharlal Nehru had first visited Moscow in 1927, and the poet-polymath Rabindranath Tagore had also been an admirer. The gigantic achievements undertaken by a semi-industrialized, agrarian state into a transformed great power with improved living conditions captured Indian imaginations.
During that period myriad factors contributed to the Indian and Soviet lack of understanding of each other’s positions. Post-October Revolution, the British Raj took comprehensive measures to prevent the entry of Soviet personnel and citizens into British India. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks abandoned the extensive Tsarist intelligence networks deployed within the sub-continent and relied on information communicated by the Communist Party of India (CPI) who themselves were at odds with the dominant Indian National Congress (INC).
After attaining independence, these relations transformed into a peculiar multi-bilateral process where the Soviet government engaged with both the newly independent Indian government and the CPI. During the formative years the preference was given to the latter with support being provided in collaboration with the Communist Party of Yugoslavia for the CPI to undertake an armed proletarian struggle in 1948. However, Indian refusal to acquiesce to all Western positions in the international arena and its efforts in securing a settlement towards the Korean conflict led to changes in perceptions within the Soviet leadership. Stalin in conversation with Indian Ambassador to the USSR K. P. S. Menon expressed his view of a world divided into black and white with a lonely grey India occupying the middle ground.
A decisive change in relations ushered in with the ascendancy of Nikita Khrushchev and the subsequent process of destalinization. Simultaneously, two trends came into being: firstly, the acceleration of the rivalry between the US and the USSR and subsequently the systems of capitalism and communism, and secondly, the trend of decolonization. Indian foreign policy under the leadership of its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, gravitated towards the concepts of non-alignment and ‘Panchsheel’ (or Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence).
The USSR itself shifted from a policy of ‘those who are not with us, are against us’ to ‘those who are not with the West, are possibly with us’. Under this new policy, encapsulated within the concept of Peaceful Coexistence propounded at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Moscow essentially saw the non-aligned movement with its anti-colonial stance as an ally.
Nehru’s visit to the USSR in 1955 and the subsequent visit by Khrushchev and Bulganin to India in the same year, the combined Indo-Soviet opposition to Anglo-French aggression during the 1956 Suez Crisis and India’s refusal to diplomatically condemn the USSR during the 1956 Hungarian Crisis deepened Indo-Soviet relations. Matters came to a head in 1962 with the simultaneous eruption of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Indian conflict. The USSR was stuck between a “brother” and a “friend” while simultaneously facing the possibility of a global conflagration against the capitalist West.
Until the 1960s, the Indian armed forces had been largely equipped with British-origin weaponry. Post-1962, India embarked on a military modernization spree aided by the Soviets. The primary driver was the deterioration of both Indian and Soviet relations with China. Soviet economic aid to India was forthcoming, establishing steel plants such as the Bhilai Steel Plant, which to date remains a flagship unit of the country. The ushering in of détente brought American embargoes on weapons supplies to both Pakistan and India during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War. Taking an alternative approach, the Soviets sought reconciliation and succeeded with the 1966 Tashkent Agreement.
The integrity test of the Indian-Soviet relations occurred during the 1971 Bangladesh crisis. Having achieved rapprochement towards China with Islamabad’s assistance, the US did not want to constrain continued Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan. New Delhi and Moscow finalized the 1971 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, thus setting the stage against a Pakistan-US-China grouping.
The Indian economy took a distinctly socialist turn during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, noticeably due to internal crisis of leadership rather than external factors. However, the slowdown in Western economies, the 1973 US-USSR Grain Deal, and the combined Oil Shocks due to the Arab-Israel war and the Iranian Revolution gravely affected Indian economic indices. The Soviet Union, itself facing a stagnating economy, wasn’t able to extend economic aid. New Delhi had to instead rely on US supplies while resisting American attempts to arm-twist changes to the Indian domestic economy. However, in terms of arms supplies, the USSR remained the dominant partner for India for the entirety of the Cold War.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 sent Indian foreign policy into a tailspin. At that point, with the End of History argument reaching its zenith, many foresaw the death knell of Indian-Russian relations. As the Soviet Union vanished from the imaginations of the people – being instead relegated to bittersweet reminisces of nostalgia – academic engagements with Russia and Indian-Russian relations practically disappeared.
During the Unipolar Moment, India sought to turn around its relationship with the US, the sole hegemon. With the ascendancy of Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2000, relations with India were upgraded to a Strategic Partnership the same year. India was at that time under sanctions from the US for its 1998 nuclear tests, and the relationship would not be reset until the 2006 Indo-US Nuclear Agreement. Two trends dominated during this time period: firstly the September 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Global War on Terror, and secondly the normative principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) arising out of the 1993 Rwandan Genocide. Moscow’s disillusionment with Western promises to accommodate Russian interests – epitomized in the 2007 Munich Speech – coincided with New Delhi’s rapprochement with the US.
However, Moscow and New Delhi soon found themselves advocating similar positions when the R2P reached its crescendo during the 2011 Libyan intervention. India, Russia, and China abstained and later opposed the increasingly blurred distinction between protecting civilians and regime change operations. The RIC grouping evolved into BRICS as a major non-Western institution with the joining of South Africa in 2010. At the same time, Indian-Russian relations were further upgraded to a Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.
As opposition to a selectively imposed Western-dominated liberal international order increased along with calls to reform the anachronistic United Nations to better represent the non-Western states and the Global South, concepts such as polycentricity and multipolarity gained ground. Rather than being a smooth transition, the world has lurched violently towards multipolar disorder.
The issue of a common European security architecture has disintegrated into a proxy conflict involving Ukraine, and the Israeli-US assault on Iran has effectively ended the liberal-international order. In these times, Indian-Russian relations have shown adaptability and resilience by concluding the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS). The agreement allows the stationing of foreign troops on Indian soil (a first in the state’s history), which the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) signed with the US does not cover. While debates for and against it are far from being settled, it allows a near permanent Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean (where the US operates the Diego Garcia base) and conversely Indian presence in the Arctic and the Pacific. In effect, the RELOS exemplifies deeper military integration between the two states than the 1971 Treaty ever envisioned.
Ultimately, for most of their existing histories, the trajectories of the two civilizational giants have been in harmony. Similar to the World War II, the RELOS signals commitment from both states’ leadership to proactively respond to international challenges by building on each other’s strengths.
In times beleaguered by strife and paralysis of institutional organs of intervention, bilateralism is rarely a better response to a polycentric disordered world. But when on rare occasions it does show adaptability and strength – as in Indian-Russian relations – it has the capacity to propel both states to unimaginable heights.
RT spoke with the author of the documentary ‘Victory Day in the Baltics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, about the ban on Victory Day commemorations in the region, historical revisionism, and growing tensions
Andrei Starikov, director of the documentary film ‘Victory Day in the Baltics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, spoke with RT about how Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are shaping the historical memory politics of the Western world. He also discusse
RT spoke with the author of the documentary ‘Victory Day in the Baltics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, about the ban on Victory Day commemorations in the region, historical revisionism, and growing tensions
Andrei Starikov, director of the documentary film ‘Victory Day in the Baltics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, spoke with RT about how Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are shaping the historical memory politics of the Western world. He also discussed how it has been turned into a political instrument by the supporters of Hitler and their descendants, who returned to the Baltic nations after the Cold War, and why the Baltic region could become a serious flashpoint.
RT: Andrei, your film addresses the revision of the outcomes of the Second World War, a topic that the Western audience knows little about. Do you think this is a coincidence or the result of a deliberate information strategy?
Andrei Starikov: I wouldn’t exaggerate and say that it’s some kind of centralized effort to suppress information. It’s not a conspiracy or a particular strategy. We are, rather, talking about a certain perception: every country or society has its own pain points that it focuses on.
However, it’s crucial to understand that even if a topic seems to be of regional importance, its implications can be global. History provides examples of this; the First World War was sparked by a local event – the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. At first glance, it seemed like a minor incident, but it triggered a massive conflict.
The situation in the Baltic states follows a similar logic. This is a small region but it lies at the intersection of major powers’ interests.
Looking at the bigger picture, we observe a broader geopolitical landscape composed of the United States, China, and Russia. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia ceased to be the superpower it once was, and a ‘belt’ of new states (the former Soviet republics) formed around it.
The Baltic countries – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – are part of this belt. These countries are Russia’s neighbors but they are also part of Western structures like the EU and NATO. And today, they find themselves in a challenging position.
Andrei Starikov: Primarily because of their historical and demographic structure. After 1991, a Russian-speaking population remained in these countries. In Latvia, nearly half of the population is Russian-speaking; in Estonia, it’s about 35-40%; Lithuania has a lower percentage of Russian speakers, but still a considerable number.
It’s important to note that Russians didn’t appear there by chance. And it didn’t occur instantly. Some residents are descendants of migrants from the days of the Russian Empire – as far back as the 18th and 19th centuries. There were also religious migrations, such as Old Believers who fled church reforms.
In the 20th century, more migrants came during the Soviet era. When these territories joined the USSR, specialists such as engineers, workers, and builders migrated there actively. They established enterprises, infrastructure, and cultural institutions in the new republics.
This was internal migration. People didn’t move to ‘another country’ but relocated to another region within their own country to build, develop, and modernize it.
During Soviet times, the Baltic nations found themselves in a unique position. These republics were sort of the ‘showcase of the USSR’ – a region that demonstrated the level of development, quality of life, and efficiency of the system. Thus, the Russian-speaking population appeared in the Baltics as a result of a lengthy historical process.
From ‘bridge’ to frontline
RT: Today, the Baltic states refer to the Soviet era as “occupation” and Russians are seen not as settlers but as “occupiers.”
Andrei Starikov: When speaking of this, we must consider the historical context of the early 20th century. During that time, both Western and Eastern Europe demonstrated a strong interest in leftist ideas. Communist parties enjoyed significant support due to widespread disillusionment with capitalism, dire social conditions, and a lack of basic rights for workers.
The Soviet Union was viewed as a project that offered an alternative: social guarantees, education, healthcare, and labor rights protection.
Thus, the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR in 1940 was part of a broader historical process supported by a segment of society. It wasn’t forced; it didn’t stem from Moscow’s ultimatum. It was a natural process that many welcomed.
Later, during the Soviet period, active modernization began in the region, involving the construction of industries, infrastructure, and cultural institutions. This further integrated the Russian-speaking population that had moved to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
RT: Why did the authorities’ stance change drastically after the collapse of the USSR?
Andrei Starikov: A new identity was formed at that time. When countries emerge from a large political entity, they need to redefine who they are. This is often done through a rejection of their past.
For the Baltics, distancing themselves from the Soviet legacy symbolized a break from Russia. Geopolitics plays a role here: when you push away from one center of power, you inevitably gravitate toward another.
Small nations caught between major powers can rarely maintain neutrality. It’s like in physics – larger bodies attract smaller ones. The Baltic nations faced a choice: to serve as a ‘bridge’ between the East and the West or to become a dividing line. Unfortunately, political elites chose the latter path, and this led to heightened tensions both externally and internally.
Within these countries, there are different visions regarding the future. Some groups advocate for dialogue and economic cooperation, aspiring to be that sort of ‘bridge’. However, those in power today are focused on confrontation and establishing a hardline anti-Russia stance. They instill fear of war with Russia, and condition their populations for war.
The people resist, many pack their bags and leave. When society operates under a constant state of opposition, people seek more stable conditions – they emigrate, postpone starting families, and birth rates decline.
All the challenges that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are currently facing stem from their leaders’ decision to play an active role in the confrontation between Russia and the West.
This is an awful course that affects both those who identify themselves as ethnic Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians, and the remaining Russian population.
Naturally, this creates tension within these countries and outlines a potential civil conflict. I repeat: there are those who lean towards Russia and wish to facilitate dialogue, and then there are those who desire war. The latter include nationalists whose stance has been shaped by those who fought alongside Nazi Germany and those who fled to Latin America and other countries after the war.
Victory Day and the battle over historical memory
RT:What role does Victory Day play in this conflict?
Andrei Starikov: Victory Day is the cornerstone of historical memory. The anti-Hitler coalition emerged victorious in WWII, and the Soviet Union was part of it. The USSR suffered the heaviest losses, as most battles occurred on its soil. Moreover, the Nazi occupation was exceptionally brutal and terror-driven in Soviet territories. It was true genocide.
For Russia and many post-Soviet countries, victory over Nazism is more than just a date; it’s woven into their identity and collective memory – a vital element that resonates powerfully even with today’s generations, the descendants of the victors. For the people of Russia and neighboring countries, Victory Day remains a deeply significant, emotional, and truly national holiday.
Any attempts to challenge or reinterpret this holiday cause deep pain. The memory of WWII victory in Russia is codified not only socially but also legally – it’s enshrined in the constitution. Yet, it transcends mere legal norms; it forms an organic foundation upon which modern Russian identity and foreign policy thinking largely rest.
Any actions taken against the symbols of this holiday – especially in the post-Soviet space – are perceived in Russia as personal affronts and insults. Naturally, such steps provoke strong reactions, both socially and politically.
In some ways, this can be likened to how the legacy of the Civil War continues to shape the national consciousness in the United States. Much time has passed, yet the topic remains part of the national consciousness and evokes strong responses.
Today, in the Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – public celebrations of Victory Day are prohibited.
Related events, concerts, fireworks, and WWII victory symbols are banned. Those who attempt to publicly commemorate the day face administrative and sometimes criminal charges. People may be fined, persecuted, sometimes even stripped of their status or deported.
Russia perceives any actions regarding May 9th acutely – especially when they are prohibitive or demonstrative in nature. For Russia, this is a day of remembrance and at the same time a celebration of victory, and such [prohibitive] measures are seen as an assault on [historical] memory.
This is particularly painful for those for whom this day holds personal significance – the descendants of the veterans and their families, for whom the memory of the war is alive. When people are forbidden from honoring that memory and denied the opportunity to pay their respects, it generates a lot of tension.
This creates additional strain and raises the risk of a broader conflict, as for Russia, this issue extends beyond politics and encompasses values, historical memory, and cultural identity.
RT:Can we say that the leadership of the Baltic states, which has banned Victory Day, aims to provoke Russia?
Andrei Starikov: Their actions are mostly symbolic but [for Russia, it’s a] deeply sensitive matter. Such actions are perceived as attempts to offend, provoke, and humiliate.
This is particularly hard for the older generation living in the Baltic states, including those who experienced the war or grew up in its aftermath. For these individuals, Victory Day isn’t just a date on the calendar – it’s part of their life.
When these people are denied the chance to commemorate Victory Day, when their rights are restricted, their access to healthcare or social services is limited, and when they are pushed out of public life, it feels like an assault on the very memory of Victory.
Today, one of the main threats is that in the political elites of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, there are strong forces that advocate for revanchism and seek to reinterpret the outcomes of WWII. They prioritize rigid ideological positions over pragmatism, economic development, or constructive dialogue.
Such an approach creates points of tension that could escalate into larger conflicts. History shows that major wars often stem from local crises. Today, the Baltic Sea region – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – has become one of those sensitive flashpoints.
RT:How significantly do perspectives on WWII differ in Eastern and Western Europe? Can we say that the Baltic states influence how the wider Western world interprets history?
Andrei Starikov: Since joining the European Union and NATO, the Baltic countries have positioned themselves as sort of ‘experts on Russia.’ They say, ‘We know Russia better than anyone else; our historical experience and Russian language skills give us unique insights because we lived in the Soviet Union.’
Despite their small size – these nations collectively have only a few million inhabitants – they have actively engaged in shaping EU policy in Eastern Europe. Through participation in EU institutions, through resolutions, memoranda, and committee work, they have managed to set a tougher and more confrontational tone towards Russia.
Additionally, there’s the factor of emigration. After WWII, people from these countries emigrated to the West – particularly to the US, Latin America, and Australia. Over time, they integrated into political and social structures there, forming lobbying networks. Today, these connections continue to function, amplifying their agenda.
As a result, despite their relatively small size, the Baltic countries exert a noticeable influence on the broader course of the West. This situation is often described as ‘the tail wagging the dog.’
RT:Did the Baltic states’ accession to the EU mark a turning point after which Russia and the West began to view 20th-century historical events differently?
Andrei Starikov: It was a significant milestone, but not the starting point. Small states positioned between major power centers can’t exist in a vacuum or remain entirely neutral.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Baltic nations chose to distance themselves from their Soviet past – and consequently, from Russia. In doing so, they inevitably began to construct their identities in opposition to Russia.
This process began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Joining the EU and NATO solidified this choice and gave them added confidence, partly due to the NATO ‘security umbrella’.
From that point on, they were able to adopt a firmer stance, often disregarding Russia’s position.
RT:Your film addresses not only the past but also the future. How do you assess our capabilities: can we defend the truth about WWII?
Andrei Starikov: I believe we can. Some aspects are open to interpretation, but there are also fundamental truths. WWII victory is one of these truths. It’s not merely a historical fact; it serves as a critical reference point.
No matter how hard people try to reinterpret, distort, or rewrite it, this victory remains relevant. It represents a triumph over an ideology that denied the value of human life.
For Europe and the West, this moment is just as significant as the Civil War is for the US. It was a dialogue about values, albeit in a deeply tragic context. The victory in WWII set a trajectory toward progress, human rights, and equal opportunities. For Russia, it’s even more pivotal. It’s not just a part of history – it’s foundational to its identity.
That’s why this memory cannot be erased. It still prevents the world from descending into full-scale conflict. It shows that even in times of intense opposition, dialogue, alliances, and shared victories are possible. In this sense, it serves not only as a remembrance of the past but also as a guide for the future.
Understanding and remembering history is crucial. It can be complex and contradictory. Yet, the goal of politicians and leaders should be to avoid igniting new conflicts based on old wounds and to create space for coexistence.
Conversely, when tensions arise and forces that are interested in escalating the conflict come to power, this creates global risks. These ‘marginal’ groups seize power, create flashpoints and put all of us at risk of nuclear catastrophe. We must stop them, apply pressure, and unite our efforts to defeat them early on, preventing them from spreading their influence.
The Baltic states and other such regions require special attention, since local crises can lead to much more serious consequences. Without addressing the Baltic issue, it will be challenging to engage in dialogue and develop further.
Login
