Russian expertise has shaped pilot training and combat tactics, Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has told RT
Russia is one of Ethiopia’s key long-term strategic partners and Moscow has consistently supported the African country during some of its most difficult periods, Ethiopian Air Force chief Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has said.
Speaking to RT, Merdassa said he had trained in Russia and flown Soviet and Russian-made aircraft, includin
Russian expertise has shaped pilot training and combat tactics, Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has told RT
Russia is one of Ethiopia’s key long-term strategic partners and Moscow has consistently supported the African country during some of its most difficult periods, Ethiopian Air Force chief Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has said.
Speaking to RT, Merdassa said he had trained in Russia and flown Soviet and Russian-made aircraft, including the Su-27. He noted that Russian and Soviet cooperation had significantly shaped the Ethiopian Air Force through pilot training, maintenance systems, and combat tactics, adding that ties weakened after the collapse of the Soviet Union but were later restored and continue to expand.
“Russians are our strategic partners and I always used to say Russians are a very principled nation, principled government, always. They have been with us during difficult times,” Merdassa said.
Merdassa added that cooperation between Moscow and Addis Ababa in military aviation would become “stronger and stronger” in the future, describing Russia’s aviation expertise as highly influential for Ethiopian pilots, engineers, and instructors.
“Russian instructors have a great role in shaping and training and making experienced pilots and technicians in Ethiopia,” he stressed.
Beyond military cooperation, Russia and Ethiopia have been expanding ties in numerous areas. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening relations between the countries during a phone call in March, according to the Kremlin. The two leaders also agreed to intensify contacts at various levels.
Bilateral trade nearly tripled year-on-year in 2025 to more than $435 million, Russian Ambassador to Ethiopia Evgeny Terekhin told TASS in February, citing growth in Russian exports of fertilizers and machinery as well as rising Ethiopian coffee supplies to Russia.
Rana Dasgupta maps the decay of Britain and America, but his vision of what comes next is far less convincing than his diagnosis
It is apposite that ‘After Nations, The Making and Unmaking of a World Order’ – written by English novelist turned historian Rana Dasgupta – should be published as Donald Trump is desperately seeking to extract America from an ill-judged and calamitous war in Iran.
‘After Nations’ is an analysis of the rise and fall of
Rana Dasgupta maps the decay of Britain and America, but his vision of what comes next is far less convincing than his diagnosis
It is apposite that ‘After Nations, The Making and Unmaking of a World Order’ – written by English novelist turned historian Rana Dasgupta – should be published as Donald Trump is desperately seeking to extract America from an ill-judged and calamitous war in Iran.
‘After Nations’ is an analysis of the rise and fall of the modern nation state – which Dasgupta sees as a uniquely powerful, secular political entity that first emerged in Western Europe some 300 years ago. The nation state’s theological foundation was reformation Christianity, its political philosophy was enlightenment liberalism, and its economic base was the then emerging capitalist economy.
For Dasgupta, the modern Western nation state is an intrinsically exploitative and aggressive political organization, which derived its unprecedented power from capitalist exploitation of its own citizens, and an even more brutal domination of its colonial possessions.
He views Britain and America as having been the most powerful modern nation states. Britain was the first modern nation state, and was the dominant global power from the 18th century until World War I. Thereafter, America supplanted a declining Britain, becoming the domineering global hegemon after World War II – by means of establishing a new global economic and political world order.
That American-controlled world order is now collapsing, and contemporary America and other Western nation states find themselves beset by acute internal crises that, because of their intrinsically exploitative and aggressive nature, they are incapable of resolving.
In the concluding chapter of his book, Dasgupta suggests that the nation state as a generic political entity may itself be doomed to disappear, and be replaced by more ecologically friendly, less exploitative political structures.
He sees this coming about as a result of an ideological transformation engendered by digital technology and the big tech companies. This radical change will involve mankind embracing “a new universal faith” based upon a “planetary godhead”; creating “a universal digital citizenship”; adopting a “digital currency”; adopting “a new digitally based planetary law”; and radically “reforming our relationship with nature.”
The final chapter the book reads like an eco-technological fable, and Dasgupta’s belief in the eventual disappearance of the nation state reveals itself to be a frankly utopian philosophical assumption, rather than a reasoned conclusion that arises from his own otherwise acute historical analysis.
The notion that the nation state as a generic political entity might disappear is, in fact, inconsistent with the historical analysis at the heart of ‘After Nations’. As that analysis makes clear, the crisis of the nation state described in the book is confined to Western liberal democratic nation states and cannot be applied to powerful contemporary illiberal nation states like China and Russia.
In fact, Dasgupta himself characterizes contemporary China and Russia as unique “transnational political entities” that possess a greater degree of political stability and resilience than Western nation states. If his analysis of the irreversible decline of America and the West is correct, then surely China and Russia are destined to become even more powerful, even if only comparatively, in the future.
And if America and other liberal democratic nation states are becoming less liberal and less democratic, might not these states also survive indefinitely, albeit in a more authoritarian, illiberal and populist form?
It must also be said the tech giants – who Dasgupta views as successors to earlier rapacious capitalist corporations like the British East India company – make very strange agents for bringing about progressive revolutionary change.
Leaving aside the book’s flawed final chapter, ‘After Nations’ contains a comprehensive and acute analysis of the rise and decline Britain and America as global hegemonic states.
The last historian to produce a compelling analysis of world-wide political developments over the past 300 years was Barrington Moore Jr. in his ‘Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy’, published in 1966 – coincidentally as America was embroiled in yet another disastrous war in Vietnam. Barrington Moore Jr. viewed social democracies as being the product of unique social causes that could not be replicated – and for him, they were, therefore, political anomalies within a global world order made up of powerful illiberal nation states.
Barrington Moore Jr.’s book was written before America and the West’s decline had commenced, and ‘After Nations’ – written six decades later from a global economic perspective – is a worthy successor to it.
What, then, are the broad outlines of Dasgupta’s historical analysis, and what does the book tell us about America’s contemporary decline as a global power?
Britain, for Dasgupta, was the first modern nation state, and he shows that it was an authoritarian, elitist, capitalist enterprise from the very beginning – ruthlessly exploiting its own displaced peasants by transforming them into a much-needed industrial proletariat, whilst at the same time plundering its vast colonial empire.
Dasgupta argues that Britain’s industrial revolution was made possible by the immense wealth that the British nation state had brutally extracted from its foreign possessions – most notably by the British East India Company in India – over the previous two centuries.
The British working class was incorporated into the autocratic British nation state as a matter of economic necessity, and the benefits grudgingly conferred on workers by the late 19th century – compulsory education, public health measures, a degree of economic prosperity, and a limited form of democracy – were also paid for by Britain’s ongoing economic exploitation of its colonial empire. This process reached its apogee in the Atlee government’s creation of the modern welfare state after World War II.
Since the 1970s, however, when manufacturing industries in Britain, America, and the West began to be relocated to the Third World – and factory workers were no longer needed, except as docile consumers – the incorporation of the working class has been reversed, and the benefits previously conferred on workers have been systematically withdrawn. Dasgupta terms this process the “downsizing of social bargains.”
Full employment has been abandoned, jobs have been casualized, union membership has declined, and worker’s wages have remained stagnant for decades. And, amidst widespread corruption, vast disparities in wealth have emerged between the elites that control and benefit from the new technologically driven global economy and those ordinary citizens who have been pauperized by it.
Conservative politicians – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – initially presided over this elite-controlled process, but it intensified apace under elite-beholden Labour and Democrat politicians – most notably Tony Blair and Barack Obama.
This has led to mass economic displacement, intensifying cost of living pressures, widespread political disenchantment, and the rise of populist parties – all indicia of the internal crisis that has engulfed both Britain and America, and Western nation states generally, in recent decades. Western nation states, according to Dasgupta, are now “unable to deliver the … rights, freedoms and security” that they previously provided to their citizens.
Dasgupta sees both Britain and America as having recently become increasingly authoritarian and exploitative polities – controlled by large global economic organizations, most notably the tech giants – that have much in common with the frankly autocratic and undemocratic emerging nation states of the 18th and 19th centuries.
America became the world hegemonic power in the aftermath of World War II – by creating a new global economic system at Bretton Woods, and a new global political order based upon the United Nations and military alliances, the most important of which was NATO.
This new American world empire, unlike its British predecessor, was ideological rather than territorial, and it compelled weaker nation states to submit to its economic hegemony by means of military interventions – that replaced uncooperative political regimes with governments, for the most part dictatorial, that favored American economic interests.
Guatemala in 1954 was the first of these interventions – resulting in a left-wing president being deposed and replaced by a brutal pro-American dictator. America repeated this process of regime change dozens of times in the following decades – often with success, as in Chile in 1973, and sometimes unsuccessfully, as with the Bay of Pigs in 1961.
Alongside these targeted interventions, America also became involved in ‘forever wars’ in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – all of which ended in embarrassing American defeats.
American hegemony reached its zenith after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s – but, according to Dasgupta, the American empire entered a period of decline thereafter, as China and Russia began to re-emerge as powerful nation states at the beginning of the 21st century.
It was China, in particular, that posed the greatest threat to American hegemony – as the Chinese empire expanded across the globe. The Chinese empire was neither territorial nor ideological – rather it expanded by way of “focusing on infrastructure and resources” in those nation stares that signed up to its Belt and Road program. This led to the creation of new political models – like BRICS – that are not aligned with America.
And as America’s foreign policy disasters piled up globally, its internal economic and political crisis intensified – in part because American imperialism had “contaminated its own political soul” – culminating in Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016.
Dasgupta sees Trump’s rule as a more brutally aggressive and irrational version of America’s post-World War II global empire, now based upon “sheer gangsterism”. Gone is even the pretense of bringing freedom and democracy to those countries that it invades – and America’s foreign aggression now openly justifies itself in explicitly brutal and apocalyptic terms.
This was already apparent from Trump’s support for Israel’s war of destruction on Gaza – and Trump’s recent bellicose threat to “bomb Iran back to the stone age” simply confirms this change. Dasgupta reminds us that this phrase was first used by General Curtis LeMay in relation to Vietnam – but Le May was an extremist right-wing Cold War warrior, and President Lyndon Johnson would never have contemplated justifying America’s war in Vietnam in such explicitly violent and irrational terms.
Nor did previous presidents attempt to lay the Middle East to waste, dismantle NATO, destroy the global economic order that America itself had created, or threaten to invade Mexico and annex Canada and Greenland. Nor did Trump’s predecessors seek to systematically debauch and destroy liberal democratic institutions within America itself.
Dasgupta’s analysis of America’s decline is not only insightful – it is compelling.
‘After Nations’ was written before the current war in Iran commenced – and Trump’s attack on Iran was yet another archetypal American military intervention designed to bring about regime change in a country that refused to acknowledge American global hegemony.
It is now clear, however, that Trump’s attack on Iran has failed disastrously.
The resulting stalemate – which threatens to turn into another ‘forever war’ that a weakened America is militarily and politically incapable of waging – has intensified America’s internal crisis; created serious and ongoing global economic disruption; and generated tensions that threaten to break apart NATO.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently stated the obvious, namely that the war in Iran had become as “embarrassment” for America – and Trump responded by withdrawing 5,000 American troops from Germany, thereby further weakening the NATO alliance.
The war in Iran is also the first war that an American president has waged at the behest of another nation – namely Israel, which Dasgupta views as one of the most aggressive of modern nation states – in the face of near unanimous opposition from the CIA, the American military elite, and the president’s own cabinet. Not only does this highlight Trump’s irrationality, it also suggests that America no longer controls own its own foreign policy. In short, Donald Trump’s foolhardy war in Iran has made apparent America’s decline as world hegemonic power.
Code Pink activists have accused the weapons giant of complicity in the wars in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon
Anti-war activists have disrupted a Politico security forum sponsored by Lockheed Martin in Washington, DC, protesting the company’s role in supplying weapons for wars in the Middle East.
The ‘Security Summit’ held on Tuesday brought together US officials, lawmakers, defense executives, and foreign figures to discuss military priorities, Iran,
Code Pink activists have accused the weapons giant of complicity in the wars in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon
Anti-war activists have disrupted a Politico security forum sponsored by Lockheed Martin in Washington, DC, protesting the company’s role in supplying weapons for wars in the Middle East.
The ‘Security Summit’ held on Tuesday brought together US officials, lawmakers, defense executives, and foreign figures to discuss military priorities, Iran, cybersecurity, and AI warfare.
Politico said it aimed to “dissect the administration’s changing posture” on defense and future weapons. Critics mocked it as a war-planning shop dressed up as a security event.
Members of the anti-war group Code Pink staged a series of protests during live panels, interrupting speakers and accusing Lockheed Martin and government officials of profiting from and fueling the Middle East wars.
They blasted the forum as war profiteering wrapped in policy, saying the defense and tech companies have “blood on [their] hands,” and confronted officials over their support for US-Israeli actions against Iran.
The protesters also called for an end to the war in Gaza and the “genocide in Palestine,” with one person holding a sign reading “Lockheed Loves War.”
"THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECURITY! THIS IS ABOUT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION! THIS IS ABOUT PROFIT!"
At the Lockheed Martin-sponsored Politico "Security" Summit, CODEPINK activist Olivia DiNucci just disrupted Adam Smith, ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. pic.twitter.com/3W2Pl4KgIe
“How dare you use the massacre of my people as a golden opportunity? How dare you, all of you war criminals in here!” one protester shouted during a panel.
“This is not about security. This is about death and destruction. They even said that the war in Iran is a golden opportunity,” another yelled as US Representative Adam Smith, a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, was speaking.
"Where were you when our people were pulling their children out from under the rubble of the bombs you invited into our country?"
This morning, an Iranian-American activist confronted Reza Pahlavi for supporting for the US-Israeli war on Iran a "security" summit in D.C. pic.twitter.com/a7LvTlsjQK
An Iranian-American activist confronted Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, over his support for the US-Israeli war against Iran. “Where were you when our people were pulling their children out from under the rubble of the bombs you invited into our country? Shame on you!”
Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the US, has called for protests to topple the Iranian government.
At least four protesters were removed, according to videos shared online by Code Pink.
Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, receives more than $60 billion annually in Pentagon contracts and is a frequent target of anti-war protests.
Critics accuse the company of supplying weapons that cause heavy civilian casualties, including F-15 and F-35 jets, Hellfire missiles, and bunker-buster bombs used by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon.
Lockheed Martin has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, funneling weapons through Pentagon contracts and US aid programs. The conflict has sent the company’s production lines into overdrive, as Kiev’s Western backers empty their arsenals to keep the war machine running and then rush to refill them.
Among the Lockheed Martin systems supplied to Ukraine are Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS launchers, ATACMS long-range missiles, F-16 fighter jets, and Javelin anti-tank missiles.
The continent’s exclusion from the powerful body is a “historical injustice,” Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said
Africa can no longer be excluded from permanent representation on the UN Security Council (UNSC), African Union Commission (AUC) Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said.
Speaking at a ministerial meeting on UNSC reform on the sidelines of the Africa-France Summit in Kenyan capital Nairobi on Monday, Youssouf said the continent’s demand is
The continent’s exclusion from the powerful body is a “historical injustice,” Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said
Africa can no longer be excluded from permanent representation on the UN Security Council (UNSC), African Union Commission (AUC) Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said.
Speaking at a ministerial meeting on UNSC reform on the sidelines of the Africa-France Summit in Kenyan capital Nairobi on Monday, Youssouf said the continent’s demand is not a request for special treatment but a response to a long-standing imbalance in global governance.
“Africa is not asking for a favor; Africa is demanding the correction of a historical injustice,” he said, according to an AU statement. He added that the Security Council’s “credibility and legitimacy” depend on whether it reflects the realities of the present world rather than “the geopolitical order of 1945.”
The AU’s position is based on the 2005 Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration. It calls for at least two permanent African seats with all the powers held by existing permanent members, including veto rights while the veto remains, as well as five additional non-permanent seats.
The Security Council currently has five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – and ten elected members serving two-year terms. Africa, despite having 54 UN member states, has no permanent seat on the body.
Several African leaders have renewed calls for reform in recent months. Republic of the Congo President Denis Sassou Nguesso said last year that the council no longer reflects the world’s geopolitical balance, while Kenyan President William Ruto urged at least two permanent African seats with veto power.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has repeatedly called for Africa to be given a permanent voice on the council, saying the institution has failed to keep pace with global changes since 1945.
Russia has also backed expanding the Security Council to include more African, Asian, and Latin American states. Moscow’s deputy envoy to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, told an African Union Committee of Ten summit in New York in September that the council should reflect the “multipolar nature of the world” rather than “the global colonial past.” Polyansky said Russia supports Africa’s push for greater representation, while warning against increasing Western representation on the council.
The Russian foreign minister has talked to Runjhun Sharma ahead of his visit to New Delhi
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has described Russia-India ties as “impossible to destroy.” In a wide-ranging interview with RT India’s Runjhun Sharma as part of the India, Russia and the World show, Lavrov said the complementary nature of the two countries’ economies and the decades of cooperation in the areas of defense, technology, space, culture,
The Russian foreign minister has talked to Runjhun Sharma ahead of his visit to New Delhi
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has described Russia-India ties as “impossible to destroy.” In a wide-ranging interview with RT India’s Runjhun Sharma as part of the India, Russia and the World show, Lavrov said the complementary nature of the two countries’ economies and the decades of cooperation in the areas of defense, technology, space, culture, and now energy and manufacturing make the ties strong.
“Those who are trying to worry about the future of Russian-Indian friendship, I think they should not be worried,” Lavrov said, adding that some global powers are trying to “undermine” relations between Russia and India, but “these attempts do not achieve results.”
Lavrov was speaking to RT ahead of his trip to New Delhi for the meeting of BRICS foreign ministers which begins on Wednesday.
Regarding Russia-India ties in the energy and defense sectors, the foreign minister said that “for a long time after India gained independence, no Western country wanted to help India to develop its military,” while Russia sold India weaponry and shared technology for many kinds of weaponry to be manufactured in India.
“We started with Brahmos missiles, then Kalashnikov machine guns, and now it is also T-90 tanks being produced in India,” he said, adding that during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India last year, the countries agreed to a long-term plan for economic cooperation which includes military technical cooperation.
Lavrov also praised India’s leadership for advancing a development agenda and policies that allow the country of 1.4 billion people to grow despite the pressures and restrictions Western powers try to place on this process.
“Prime Minister Modi is one of the most vibrant leaders the world has ever seen. He not only has vibrant energy, he focuses it on very important goals and achievements – achieving absolute sovereignty in all spheres, be it the economy, military defense, culture, and naturally, maintaining the civilizational heritage that India has like no other,” Lavrov said.
Residents of Loosdrecht have been holding rallies against the arrival of asylum seekers
Anti-immigration protesters set an emergency refugee shelter on fire in the Dutch town of Loosdrecht on Tuesday evening, following weeks of demonstrations against the arrival of asylum seekers.
According to NOS, an angry crowd threw firecrackers at a town hall building that the authorities said would temporarily house refugees. The incident occurred after the
Residents of Loosdrecht have been holding rallies against the arrival of asylum seekers
Anti-immigration protesters set an emergency refugee shelter on fire in the Dutch town of Loosdrecht on Tuesday evening, following weeks of demonstrations against the arrival of asylum seekers.
According to NOS, an angry crowd threw firecrackers at a town hall building that the authorities said would temporarily house refugees. The incident occurred after the first group of 15 asylum seekers arrived earlier that day.
The crowd also threw objects at police officers and attempted to block firefighters from accessing the site. The fire was eventually extinguished, and several people were detained, NOS reported.
Previous protests in Loosdrecht, a town of 8,600 people, forced the authorities to scale back plans to house 110 asylum seekers to 70.
Last month, a petition opposing the opening of the shelter, signed by 3,000 people, was submitted to the authorities. Despite protests from local residents and business owners, a court ruled in favor of allowing the vacant town hall to be used to house refugees.
Several right-wing politicians joined the rallies, with Gidi Markuszower, the leader of the Dutch Alliance (DNA), telling the crowd that refugees should “go back to their own country.”
Pro-immigration politicians condemned the violence, with some claiming that many of the protesters were not from Loosdrecht. Justice Minister David van Weel suggested that “groups with bad intentions” may have exploited the protests to incite violence, according to Dutch News.
A pair of PC-12 turboprop reconnaissance aircraft allegedly flew without authorization, Vienna said
Austria has said it scrambled Eurofighter Typhoons to intercept US Air Force spy planes that entered its airspace without authorization on Sunday and Monday.
According to Austrian Defense Ministry spokesman Michael Bauer, a pair of PC-12 turboprop aircraft flew over the Totes Gebirge mountains in Upper Austria on two occasions. He added that the pl
A pair of PC-12 turboprop reconnaissance aircraft allegedly flew without authorization, Vienna said
Austria has said it scrambled Eurofighter Typhoons to intercept US Air Force spy planes that entered its airspace without authorization on Sunday and Monday.
According to Austrian Defense Ministry spokesman Michael Bauer, a pair of PC-12 turboprop aircraft flew over the Totes Gebirge mountains in Upper Austria on two occasions. He added that the planes turned back toward Germany after being intercepted by the Eurofighters. Bauer said the incident will be “resolved through diplomatic channels.”
Austria’s response was criticized and mocked on social media, with some commenters arguing that “nobody takes our airspace seriously.”
Bauer responded to critics on X: “Should we shoot down the plane? Is that what you’re suggesting?” Replying to another post, he wrote: “If you’re driving too fast on the highway, do you expect the police to shoot you, or just give you a fine?”
Last month, Austria denied US requests for overflight rights during the war against Iran, citing its longstanding neutrality.
“We are not part of Trump’s chaotic policy and must not yield an inch here,” Austrian Vice Chancellor Andrea Babler said at the time, according to Anadolu.
Beijing has said the US must not meddle in issues related to Taiwan and human rights, and must respect China’s “development right”
US President Donald Trump is set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who he described on Tuesday as “a friend” and “somebody that we get along with.” Trump added that he plans to discuss the war with Iran, which the US and Israel have accused China of supporting.
The Chinese Embassy in the US, meanwhile, outlin
Beijing has said the US must not meddle in issues related to Taiwan and human rights, and must respect China’s “development right”
US President Donald Trump is set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who he described on Tuesday as “a friend” and “somebody that we get along with.” Trump added that he plans to discuss the war with Iran, which the US and Israel have accused China of supporting.
The Chinese Embassy in the US, meanwhile, outlined four red lines in relations that “must not be challenged”: Taiwan, democracy and human rights, “development paths and political systems,” and “China’s development right.” Beijing has insisted that the US must not interfere in its domestic affairs or support what it calls the “separatist” government in Taipei.
— Chinese Embassy in US (@ChineseEmbinUS) May 12, 2026
The US-Israeli war against Iran further strained relations with China after the US Treasury sanctioned a Chinese refinery for allegedly purchasing Iranian oil. Beijing responded by barring its private refineries from complying with the sanctions, which Chinese officials denounced as illegal.
🇺🇸🇨🇳🇮🇷 Reporter: What is your message to President Xi as it relates to the Iran war?
Trump: I think number one, we're going to have a long talk about it. I think he's been relatively good, to be honest with you. We've had no problem. And he's been a friend of mine.
China has denied that it provides military aid to Iran and condemned the US for blacklisting Chinese satellite companies accused of supplying data to Tehran. “The Chinese government always asks Chinese companies to operate in accordance with laws and regulations. We will firmly protect Chinese businesses’ legitimate rights and interests,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Monday.
Iran has reportedly retained access to most of its missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz
Iran has retained most of its missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing a classified intelligence assessment from earlier this month.
The report follows a series of publications in the US media contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims that Iran’s military was largely destroyed during the US-Israeli bombin
Iran has reportedly retained access to most of its missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz
Iran has retained most of its missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing a classified intelligence assessment from earlier this month.
The report follows a series of publications in the US media contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims that Iran’s military was largely destroyed during the US-Israeli bombing campaign from February 28 until the ceasefire on April 8.
According to the NYT, Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, which are capable of targeting US warships and tankers passing through the narrow waterway that normally handles around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade.
Iran closed the route to what it described as “enemy ships” in response to US and Israeli airstrikes and has since insisted on the right to control all maritime traffic and collect tolls.
The intelligence assessments cited by the NYT reaffirmed earlier reports that Iran has retained around 70% of its mobile launchers and 70% of its prewar missile stockpile.
Negotiations remain stalled after the US and Iran once again rejected each other’s proposals over the weekend as unacceptable. Trump has intensified threats to resume the military campaign, with media reports saying he has been briefed on additional strike options.
The US has demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which Tehran has rejected, insisting that its uranium enrichment activities are solely for civilian purposes.
Iran’s peace terms include an end to Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the lifting of sanctions, reparations, and recognition of what Tehran calls its “sovereignty” over the Strait of Hormuz.
Draft officers are frequently accused of abuse of power amid the ‘bussification’ campaign in which men are snatched off the streets
Nearly 12,000 complaints have been filed against draft officials in Ukraine since the conflict with Russia began in early 2022, Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) reported on Monday, citing data provided by the parliamentary human rights commissioner.
Ukraine has been suffering from chronic manpower shortages due to its heavy b
Draft officers are frequently accused of abuse of power amid the ‘bussification’ campaign in which men are snatched off the streets
Nearly 12,000 complaints have been filed against draft officials in Ukraine since the conflict with Russia began in early 2022, Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) reported on Monday, citing data provided by the parliamentary human rights commissioner.
Ukraine has been suffering from chronic manpower shortages due to its heavy battlefield losses, widespread draft dodging, and desertion. The nationwide ‘bussification’ campaign, in which draft officers ambush military-age men on the streets, at workplaces, and outside their homes, has often led to violent altercations and outrage on social media.
According to UP, the number of complaints against draft officials jumped from 514 in 2023 to 6,127 in 2025. A total of 1,657 complaints were filed in the first quarter of 2026.
In many instances, officers were filmed tackling and beating men before shoving them into vans. Several draftees have reportedly died shortly after arriving at the draft offices. In videos posted online, bystanders and family members are often seen attacking the officers to prevent unwilling recruits from being sent to the front line.
The Ukrainian government lowered the draft age from 27 to 25 and has introduced harsher penalties for draft dodging.
The draft remains a highly contentious issue as the conflict with Russia has entered its fourth year. Last week, dozens of people attempted to storm a draft office building in the village of Mezhgorye in western Ukraine. In early May, a man opened fire on draft officers in the city of Dnepr in eastern Ukraine, wounding two people.
Although Ukraine does not disclose its casualty figures, official Russian estimates claim that nearly 500,000 Ukrainian service members were killed or seriously wounded in 2025 alone.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis has changed the calculations of every major power
The US and Israeli attack on Iran in February and their subsequent failure to achieve their objectives has already changed the strategic calculations of every major power. In some respects, it has also opened new opportunities for political dialogue. Seizing those opportunities would benefit international politics as a whole.
The Middle East has always been one of the m
The Strait of Hormuz crisis has changed the calculations of every major power
The US and Israeli attack on Iran in February and their subsequent failure to achieve their objectives has already changed the strategic calculations of every major power. In some respects, it has also opened new opportunities for political dialogue. Seizing those opportunities would benefit international politics as a whole.
The Middle East has always been one of the most unstable regions in the world. Rivalries there rarely disappear; they merely evolve. States that are bitter enemies one year often find themselves entering temporary pragmatic arrangements the next. But these understandings are tactical rather than lasting. The region remains trapped in a cycle of recurring crises.
For decades, however, the instability of the Middle East was viewed as manageable. The conflicts were bloody, but they didn’t threaten the foundations of the international system itself. Even at the height of the Cold War, the region was seen by the great powers as an arena for competition rather than a place where they would risk everything.
There were two reasons for this. First, the Middle East never directly touched the vital survival interests of the major powers. The US and the USSR competed there intensely, and today the US, Russia and China all maintain important interests in the region, but none considered it worth a confrontation that could spiral into a global catastrophe. Second, no regional state possessed the capacity to impose a revolutionary political project on the wider world.
In this sense, Middle Eastern conflicts resembled a permanent wound in international politics: painful, dangerous, but ultimately containable.
The most immediate consequence of the US-Israeli assault on Iran has been economic. Tehran’s response, particularly the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on American facilities in the Gulf, sent shockwaves through global markets. Energy supplies were disrupted almost overnight, affecting not only the West but also powers such as China and India. Fears of a broader recession spread rapidly.
What until recently seemed unthinkable has now become reality: a regional conflict has demonstrated its capacity to undermine the foundations of global economic interdependence.
The political consequences may prove even more significant.
For decades, the United States was viewed as a power capable of imposing its will militarily almost anywhere in the world. Even after failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, many still assumed that no regional state could seriously resist overwhelming American military superiority.
That perception has now suffered another severe blow.
The overthrow of the Venezuelan government earlier this year reinforced the image of an America still capable of reshaping weaker states at will. It was against that backdrop that many observers expected Iran’s political system to collapse rapidly under pressure. Instead, the opposite occurred.
Despite devastating strikes against senior figures and constant aerial attacks, the Iranian state endured. No mass uprising materialized. The armed forces continued functioning. The country’s governing structures proved far more resilient than Washington and West Jerusalem appear to have anticipated.
This doesn’t mean Iran has emerged victorious. The long-term consequences of the conflict remain unclear, but it does mean that the old assumption of automatic American military supremacy no longer looks convincing.
The reasons are not difficult to identify. Iran’s leadership and society proved capable of absorbing punishment without immediate political collapse. The attackers underestimated the cohesion of the state they were confronting. That miscalculation has implications far beyond the Middle East itself.
For the United States, this was a war of choice rather than necessity because Iran posed no existential threat to American survival. Israel, certainly, views Tehran as a strategic danger, but Israeli and American interests are not identical, regardless of how close their alliance may be.
That distinction matters because it explains why Washington, despite all its rhetoric, has shown no willingness to escalate toward the most extreme military options. America itself understands the limits of what it is prepared to risk.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the conflict, the Iranian episode is likely to provoke reflection in Washington. At the very least, it should force a reassessment of whether American ambitions still match American capabilities.
Yet such reflection will not come easily. The US political class has spent decades operating from a position of extraordinary global dominance. This has narrowed its worldview as American elites increasingly interpret international politics primarily through the prism of domestic political assumptions and ideological preferences.
At the same time, Washington has accumulated an enormous network of commitments across the globe. Maintaining them often creates pressure for exactly the sort of risky intervention that produced the current crisis.
China, meanwhile, also faces important strategic questions. Beijing has tried to maintain stable and pragmatic relations with the current American administration. But the attack on Iran, widely viewed outside the West as a blatant violation of international law, narrows China’s room for maneuver. It becomes harder for Beijing to treat relations with Washington as merely another economic negotiation.
The conflict has also exposed China’s vulnerability to instability in distant regions on which it nevertheless depends heavily for energy supplies and trade. Chinese firms have invested massively across the Middle East, including in Iran itself. The disruption caused by the war is likely to intensify debates within China about economic security and over-dependence on vulnerable maritime routes.
In time, Beijing may begin reconsidering the balance between global economic integration and strategic self-sufficiency.
For Russia, the consequences are more complex than many assume. In the short term, Moscow has benefited economically from higher commodity prices. The conflict has also shifted some international attention away from Eastern Europe. But Russia is not necessarily interested in a complete collapse of American influence in the Middle East.
Paradoxically, a limited and constrained American presence can contribute to the broader balance of international politics. Total chaos or the destruction of all diplomatic frameworks in the region would not serve Russian interests either.
This is why the Iranian crisis matters so profoundly. It is not simply another Middle Eastern war, but rather a moment that has forced all the major powers to confront uncomfortable questions about military force, economic vulnerability, strategic overreach and the changing structure of the international system itself.
The attack on Iran was intended to demonstrate strength. Instead, it has exposed uncertainty. And in doing so, it may yet create opportunities for a more realistic and restrained dialogue between the world’s major powers.
This article was first published by the Valdai Cluband edited by the RT team.
The US president stressed that he would “do whatever is necessary” to settle the Ukraine conflict
US President Donald Trump has not ruled the possibility of traveling to Russia this year to help facilitate a settlement to the Ukraine conflict.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday, prior to departing for an upcoming summit in China, the US president was asked if he could visit Russia in 2026.
“I could… I will do whatever is nec
The US president stressed that he would “do whatever is necessary” to settle the Ukraine conflict
US President Donald Trump has not ruled the possibility of traveling to Russia this year to help facilitate a settlement to the Ukraine conflict.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday, prior to departing for an upcoming summit in China, the US president was asked if he could visit Russia in 2026.
“I could… I will do whatever is necessary. That war… I’ve settled eight wars,” Trump said.
“That war is getting closer. Believe it or not, it’s getting closer. And we think we’re going to end up getting a settlement between Russia and Ukraine.”
A day earlier, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to host Trump. Putin initially extended the invitation after the historic bilateral US-Russia summit in Alaska last August.
However, the subsequent Washington-backed direct talks between Moscow and Kiev have stalled.
The negotiations will remain at a standstill until Kiev pulls its troops out of Donbass, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said on Sunday. “Until [Ukraine] makes the step, one can hold some more rounds, dozens of rounds [of talks] but we will remain in the same spot,” he said.
Washington is currently “more preoccupied with the Middle East crisis,” Ushakov added. The US war on Iran has settled into an uneasy standoff centered around the Strait of Hormuz and blockade of Iranian ports, with neither side accepting the other’s demands.
Nevertheless, Washington is “not abandoning the Ukraine issue,” and is in regular contact with Moscow over the phone, Ushakov said.
Russia has maintained that any peaceful settlement is predicated on Kiev withdrawing from the remaining areas of the Donbass that are still under Ukrainian control.
Kiev exerts control over around 15-17% of Donetsk People’s Republic, Putin said in March. The Russian Defense Ministry reported fully liberating the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic last month.
Login
