The German parliament’s recognition of its country’s historical responsibility towards Ukraine marks a significant reassessment of a post-war political tradition that frequently placed Moscow at the centre of reconciliation over Nazi atrocities committed across the Soviet Union.

Germany’s Bundestag has formally recognised the country’s particular historical responsibility towards Ukraine for atrocities committed during the Nazi occupation, adopting parliamentary resolutions commemorating the 85th anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre near Kyiv.

The decision, taken on 9 October, has implications beyond historical remembrance. For decades, Germany’s responsibility for the destruction inflicted on the Soviet Union during the Second World War was frequently interpreted through its relationship with Russia. Moscow occupied a privileged position in German efforts at reconciliation, although some of the Nazi occupation’s worst atrocities took place in territories belonging to present-day Ukraine and Belarus.

The Bundestag’s parliamentary debate and resolutions reflect a different emphasis. Germany’s historical obligations are now being connected explicitly to Ukraine’s sovereignty and its defence against Russia’s invasion, challenging an interpretation of the past that had long influenced Berlin’s approach towards Moscow.

How Russia became the principal beneficiary of German historical responsibility

Following German reunification, reconciliation with Russia became a central element of Berlin’s eastern policy. The Soviet Union’s immense wartime losses, officially estimated at approximately 27 million people, were frequently invoked to explain Germany’s special obligation to maintain constructive relations with Moscow.

That historical argument became intertwined with political and economic considerations, contributing to the belief that Russia should remain closely integrated into Europe’s security and economic arrangements, even as relations with its neighbours deteriorated.

The difficulty lay in the frequent conflation of Russia with the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany invaded a multinational state, not the present-day Russian Federation. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians, Jews and numerous other peoples suffered under an occupation whose policies included mass murder, starvation, deportation and the systematic destruction of communities.

Ukraine was among the principal territories where the German war of annihilation unfolded. The Holocaust by bullets, the destruction of entire settlements, the exploitation of occupied agricultural regions and the deportation of civilians for forced labour were central features of Nazi rule there.

Nevertheless, German political discourse often approached this history primarily through the framework of German-Russian reconciliation. The suffering of Ukraine and Belarus was acknowledged, but neither country occupied a comparable position in Berlin’s strategic thinking.

This imbalance has been examined by German scholars of foreign policy, who have argued that the historical justification for rapprochement with Russia sometimes obscured the distinct wartime experiences of other former Soviet republics.

Babyn Yar and the geography of Nazi extermination

The anniversary of Babyn Yar provides a particularly direct illustration of the historical problem.

On 29 and 30 September 1941, German SS and police units, with assistance from local collaborators, murdered 33,771 Jewish men, women and children in a ravine outside Kyiv. The massacre was among the largest single mass shootings of the Holocaust.

Killings continued at the site throughout the German occupation. Approximately 100,000 people were murdered there, including Jews, Roma, Soviet prisoners of war and other civilians persecuted by the Nazi authorities.

Babyn Yar was not an isolated atrocity. Similar mass executions occurred across occupied Ukraine, while millions of people suffered under German military occupation. The country’s experience formed a substantial part of the wider catastrophe conventionally remembered in Germany as the war against the Soviet Union.

The geographical distinction matters because the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991 did not transfer the historical experiences of its constituent peoples exclusively to Russia. Nor did Moscow’s position as the principal diplomatic successor to the USSR confer ownership of their wartime suffering.

Recognition of Ukraine’s separate experience therefore requires more than acknowledging the location of Nazi crimes. It involves reconsidering the political assumptions that allowed Russia to become Germany’s principal partner in commemorating a history shared by several nations.

Historical responsibility acquires a contemporary meaning

In its resolution on the Babyn Yar anniversary, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU/CSU and its Social Democratic coalition partner explicitly connected remembrance of Nazi crimes with Germany’s present obligations towards Ukraine.

The document declares that responsibility for German atrocities does not end with commemorating their victims. It requires opposition to antisemitism, racism, historical revisionism and imperialist violence.

The parliamentary motion calls for continued political, economic, financial, humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine, together with support for its European integration and efforts to secure the return of children transferred to Russia.

The opposition Greens separately submitted a resolution centred on Germany’s historical responsibility towards Ukraine, advocating greater attention to the German occupation in historical education, research and cooperation between memorial institutions.

The development does not mean that Germany has only now recognised Ukrainian victims of Nazi persecution. German officials have previously acknowledged responsibility towards Ukraine alongside Russia and Belarus. In 2016, then foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier explicitly referred to the suffering of all three countries in an address marking the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

What has changed is the political weight attached to that recognition. The historical relationship with Moscow can no longer be treated as the principal expression of Germany’s obligations arising from the war, particularly when Russia is conducting a war of territorial conquest against another country devastated by Nazi aggression.

The consequences for German policy towards Moscow

The reassessment also exposes a contradiction in Germany’s earlier Russia policy.

Historical responsibility was among the arguments used to defend engagement with Moscow, including economic cooperation and efforts to accommodate Russian security concerns. Such reasoning remained influential even after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

The Nord Stream pipeline projects exemplified the wider policy of maintaining substantial economic ties with Russia despite objections from Ukraine and several Central and Eastern European governments. Those projects had commercial and geopolitical motivations, but they developed within a political culture in which reconciliation with Moscow carried particular historical significance.

Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 fundamentally undermined that approach. Germany subsequently expanded military assistance to Ukraine, while President Steinmeier acknowledged serious errors in his previous assessment of relations with Moscow.

The Bundestag’s latest resolution adds a historical dimension to that policy correction. Rather than regarding restraint towards Russia as the principal lesson of Germany’s wartime conduct, parliament has articulated a responsibility to assist Ukraine in preserving its independence.

The two positions are not necessarily incompatible as matters of historical remembrance. Germany retains an obligation to commemorate Russian victims of Nazism, just as it does Ukrainian, Belarusian and other victims. The distinction concerns whether responsibility for past atrocities should influence contemporary policy towards the Russian state when that state itself is violating another nation’s sovereignty.

That question has become increasingly important as German political parties debate the duration and extent of military assistance to Kyiv. Calls for renewed accommodation with Moscow continue to feature in domestic politics, including among those opposed to further weapons deliveries.

The Bundestag’s recognition of Ukraine’s particular historical experience does not resolve those disputes or establish a new military commitment. It does, however, challenge one of the historical arguments that shaped Germany’s previous relationship with Russia.

The significance of the Babyn Yar anniversary therefore extends beyond the commemoration of crimes committed in 1941. It concerns a belated adjustment in Germany’s understanding of where its wartime responsibilities lie, and the extent to which those responsibilities should inform its conduct towards Ukraine today.

US President Donald Trump said Ukraine needs a new president and blamed Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy for high US diesel prices.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday told reporters that Ukraine should "get a new president", adding that his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky had disobeyed his orders not to strike Russian refineries. This came after Washington moved to ease sanctions on Russian diesel and as Moscow's strikes on Ukraine, including the city of Zaporizhzhia, killed at least 21 people.

Pedro Sánchez kicked off his 29 November campaign in the so-called "lucky city" of Dos Hermanas in Seville before some 5,000 people.

Some 140,000 voters are choosing between five rivals for the Socialist nomination, hoping to influence France's 2027 presidential election; after a cyberattack, voting now runs until Sunday 6pm.

Without explicitly referring to the scheduled execution of the Fort Hood killer, the Pope reiterates the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. In the US, Vice-President Vance says he will not watch the execution by firing squad, which is due to be live-streamed in December

Serving a prison sentence in Russia apparently was not enough. Years after Konstantin Rudnev completed his term, the accusations that put him behind bars keep following him from one continent to another. This was the message a French NGO brought to Warsaw, where the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) held its 2026 […]

Student protests in France are an expression of the country’s deep political and economic crisis, says Jan Rovný, a Czech professor at Paris’s Sciences Po.

Students from elite schools and universities have joined secondary-school pupils from deprived suburbs in protesting for education reforms. Rovný explains how these young people protest in solidarity with less fortunate peers, invoking ideals of equality embedded in French minds.

He explained how traditionally violent protests in the republic are often met by disproportionately heavy-handed policing.

The French government has tried to hide students’ dissatisfaction by blaming far-left groups.

What do the protests say about French society? Are they a revolt by young people against poor conditions or part of broader woes?

It is important to realise that the situation in France does not concern only young people and education, it goes deeper than that. The era of French president Emmanuel Macron is coming to an end. For several years now, the country has been run by unstable minority governments, which all face one key problem: how to draft a budget, unveiled on October 1, and push it through parliament.

It is clear that the country is in a very difficult economic situation, because its debt stands at around 117 percent of GDP. The interest rate is rising and approaching five percent. Every day, newspapers write that France cannot bear this burden.

French society is realising that it is at an impasse both politically and economically, that the current elite has no answer, and that savings must be made in various areas. People from many sectors are now speaking out to say they do not want cuts. Or that they have problems that are not being addressed. And young people have a clear view of this, and that is why they are mobilising.

The protest began with specific demands from secondary-school pupils, who clearly identified shortcomings in education — notably missing teachers, overcrowded classrooms and schools in poor condition, some with rats running around and no running water. Yet the protest quickly grew into a nationwide movement. Why have these particular issues proved so powerful?

Partly because they underscore this whole situation, and partly because this is a young generation that represents France’s future. Young people are protesting to say: look at the future we are facing. And parents and teachers largely agree with them.

The protests began in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis and did not arise as a result of a new government reform, but from the everyday experiences of students. What does this tell us about how young French people view the state and its ability to provide public education?

France generally has relatively low trust in political institutions. Young people tend to feel this even more strongly, because they are generally less politically engaged and therefore feel they are, in some way, discriminated against. They see the state as failing to care sufficiently for them and unable to cope.

This is compounded by the approaching elections. We know that the current government is fragile, and we also know that society, as well as the political establishment as a whole, is deeply polarised, with the extremist camps in particular set to enter the elections strengthened.

Staying with the protests, it is interesting that private secondary schools have joined state schools. On Tuesday, the French daily Le Monde showed protests outisde Paris Lycée Henri-IV attended by children from elite families – and where Macron studied. How do you explain the involvement of private schools unlikely to experience the same problems as public ones?

Exactly. That is my situation as well. I teach at a very prestigious university with a beautiful campus a short distance from the Louvre.

Yet our students are protesting. They are protesting because they recognise that French society has major inequalities affecting young people in suburbs like Saint-Denis or Val-de-Marne where conditions are worse.

Better off students are mobilising in solidarity – the concept of equality has been part of France’s political consciousness since the French Revolution. Those privately educated pupil therefore see it as their duty to join protests even though they enjoy far better conditions.

France is described as a strong state where education is regarded as a public service and a fundamental pillar of the French Republic. Could frustration over lack of basic conditions in schools be a reason for current anger?

Of course, and it has several dimensions. The French Third Republic was based on the idea that public education was the means through which modern citizens are created. State schools, established by law at the time, were seen as a fundamental pillar of the new, young democracy.

When you walk around Paris or anywhere else in France, you notice that every school has both the French and European flags above its entrance, along with the words “liberty, equality, fraternity” — the motto of the republicand revolution. Historically, schools drew children out of traditional families, which at that time were highly Catholic, and turned them into modern citizens. That is the country’s foundation.

Another factor is that the French state is very powerful: public spending accounts for more than 50% of GDP. The state is hierarchical, yet it seeks to show that it can do everything, including providing schooling for all. That position is increasingly hard to defend, particularly when money is short and public spending must be cut.

France has a long history of street protests. Is the current situation different in any way from previous social conflicts?

It is difficult to say. What is interesting is that secondary-school students are mobilising. That is relatively unusual, though not entirely unprecedented. It has happened in the past too, but was less visible. Teachers’ unions are now joining these students, as are broader trade unions and public-sector employees generally. University students are also already on strike. There is talk that farmers could join them. It may gather momentum and, as with the yellow vest protests, everyone who criticises the government may take to the streets. That is essentially the majority.

What is interesting about the current protests is that they are led by underage young people who are not yet able to vote, yet can still place the government under enormous pressure. How do you explain this?

They are young and have the time and ability to mobilise. They are able to sustain it and have their own internal organisation. Certain political forces, primarily from the far left, are helping or supporting them, but only to a limited extent. I think the protest is genuinely organic, rather than being directed by a political party or political agitators.

Young people feel they have something to say, and they can mobilise with the support of some teachers, some parents and now also broader sections of society — both university students and some trade union organisations. It may last for some time.

The French government may fear protesting young people more than other protest groups. Why do protesting young people carry such particular political weight in France?

It is probably a memory of 1968 when student mobilisation shifted the entire country to open up certain issues. Sudents are able to mobilise and persevere because they do not lose income when they strike, whereas workers who go on strike do not receive pay for those days, which can be a serious problem for some.

There is also a significance of young people being the future, who say: no, we simply want this country to be different, because it will be ours and we will be responsible for it when you are no longer here.

On Monday, a 15-year-old boy lost his hand after a police grenade exploded, with several other injuries caused by police being investigated. Could this fundamentally change the public mood?

Protests in France tend to be more violent than others are used to. I think it works both ways. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of protesting students are peaceful, but some people with somewhat different intentions join them. They are called ‘casseurs’ (wreckers)who simply exploit the situation to throw stones at police or set bins on fire.

On the other side are the police, who can become highly aggressive quickly. There is now a major debate over whether the police response is proportionate. These responses divide the left and the right quite clearly with the government and the right wing supporting police, while the left argues that police brutality is pervasive.

It is quite shocking to see footage of armed police officers beating children in the street.

Exactly. And the police will have to be careful not to lose control of the situation. The response of the education minister, who has told students that he will listen to them, is also interesting. The interior minister and the prime minister have instead responded that the police are doing their job and that the interventions are proportionate.

The government is blaming radical left-wing groups for the violence, accusing the far-left party La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) of inciting riots. Do you find this political explanation convincing, or does it take attention away from students’ genuine demands?

It is difficult to say. I would not be at all surprised if extremist groups of any kind joined the protests, although left-wing groups are probably more likely. It is difficult to speculate on the extent to which this is directed from the leadership of France Unbowed. However, I do not think it is to any great extent.

Representatives of this left-wing party, including its MPs and local politicians, joined student, thereby legitimising these protests. But I very much doubt that the party would seek to organise greater violence in order to draw attention to the situation. That suggestion seems somewhat extreme to me.

France is only a few months away from presidential elections. Could this discontent become one of the issues in the election campaign?

Everyone is trying to gain political advantage from it in some way. It is quite clear that the typical Jean-Luc Mélenchon voter supports the students and government criticism more generally.

Ordinary citizens do not want to see violence or rubbish being set on fire, and this sentiment is probably much stronger on the right, which automatically sees Mélenchon as an instigator of unrest.

Mélenchon needs to be careful. To win a larger number of voters, he must also appear as someone who is trying to prevent violence. That is what he attempted to do. A few days ago, he addressed students, saying: mobilise, but your actions must be non-violent. He specifically added that they must be disciplined.

In your view, what could be the boiling point at which governments will no longer be able to calm the situation through promises or concessions?

That is a difficult question. These protests cannot go on forever, since many students realise what they want is better teaching conditions, so that they can prepare better for the baccalaureate examinations, which are approaching in the spring for those in their final year. So they may want to sit down and study.

If the government manages to offer at least some concrete solutions to the fundamental problems — above all, on timetables and teacher allocation on lycées — it may calm the situation. If it does not, I do not know.

Can we therefore understand the current protests as an expression of a crisis in French society, or as evidence that some form of civic mobilisation and the belief that protest can change something still function in France?

It is both. From young people’s perspective, the positive aspect is that they are able to mobilise, take their future into their own hands and say: this is a problem. We told you this, you did not listen to us, so now we are changing tactics and will protest visibly. I think that is fundamentally positive — without the violence.

On the other hand, French society is in deep crisis, and overcoming it will require an explicit change in the narrative – a change in the system. There will need to be some recognition that France is no longer what it used to be; while it remains one of the larger countries of the EU, it is now more or less an ordinary country and it must behave accordingly and see itself in that way.

Understanding this is quite difficult, and it will certainly require political courage and a political figure capable of turning frustrations into something positive.

Andrej Babiš, the country's billionaire populist PM and founder of the Agrofert food and chemicals group, will be hoping his party can make gains in the 81-seat Senate.

THE gloves are off, the engines are roaring and Germany is bracing itself for a motorsport showdown of epic proportions! Forget the calculators. Forget the cautious driving. And forget playing it safe. The 2026 DTM championship reaches its explosive conclusion at Hockenheim this weekend, with SIX drivers still dreaming of lifting one of European motorsport’s most coveted trophies.

And the man with the biggest target on his back is Porsche superstar Thomas Preining.

The Austrian arrives at the legendary Hockenheimring with a commanding 23-point advantage over his nearest challenger.

But with 56 points still available across the final weekend, the champagne will have to stay firmly on ice.

PREINING IN POLE POSITION — BUT RIVALS ARE CIRCLING

Preining, already a DTM champion, knows exactly what it takes to survive the pressure of a title fight. Driving for Manthey, the Porsche ace has put himself in the driving seat for a second championship crown.

But Mercedes-AMG star Maro Engel is breathing down his neck, and BMW veteran Marco Wittmann, a two-time champion, is lurking dangerously in the background. Both have the experience, machinery and determination to turn Preining’s dream weekend into an absolute nightmare.

Then come the outsiders. Mercedes driver Lucas Auer, Ferrari racer Matteo Cairoli and Aston Martin’s Nicki Thiim all retain mathematical chances of snatching the championship.

For those three, however, it would take something approaching a motorsport miracle. They need brilliant results — and some serious misfortune for the men ahead.

HOCKENHEIM: WHERE DREAMS COME TRUE — OR DIE

There could hardly be a more fitting battlefield.

The Hockenheimring has hosted the DTM season finale more than 30 times, earning its reputation as the place where champions are crowned and reputations shattered.

Its 4.5-kilometre Grand Prix circuit demands precision, courage and nerves of steel.

Get your braking wrong and a rival can pounce. Make a mistake in traffic and an entire season’s hard work could disappear in seconds.

And nobody needs reminding what happened here last year.

Turkish racer Ayhancan Güven snatched the 2025 championship with a breathtaking late move against Wittmann at the Sachs-Kurve.

It was the sort of dramatic finish that makes motorsport irresistible.

Now Wittmann is back, determined to ensure history does not repeat itself at his expense.

GERMAN GIANTS PREPARE FOR BATTLE

The DTM is no ordinary racing championship. This is a contest in which some of the biggest names in the motor industry throw their engineering expertise into a furious battle for supremacy.

Porsche, Mercedes-AMG, BMW, Ferrari and Aston Martin are represented among the six title contenders, and with GT3 machinery producing spectacular performance, the racing promises to be fierce.

Unlike Formula One, where aerodynamic advantages can sometimes leave the field stretched out, DTM’s competitive format regularly produces close battles, aggressive overtaking and unpredictable finishes.

Track position is precious. Pit-stop execution matters enormously. And a poorly timed safety car can transform the championship picture.

One moment a driver can be heading towards glory, the next, he can be staring at disaster.

TWO RACES. ONE CHAMPION.

Saturday’s race begins at 1.30pm local time, with Sunday’s championship decider scheduled for 4.30pm.

That leaves precious little room for error.

For Preining, the equation is straightforward: protect the advantage without becoming so defensive that his challengers seize the initiative.

For Engel and Wittmann, the message is equally clear. Attack.

They cannot afford to sit behind the Porsche and hope for the best.

And should Saturday’s race produce a major surprise, Sunday’s finale could become an extraordinary winner-takes-all spectacle.

MORE THAN JUST A RACE

Away from the championship battle, Hockenheim is preparing a full-blown motorsport festival.

The supporting programme includes the ADAC GT Masters, Porsche Carrera Cup Germany, ADAC GT4 Germany and BMW M2 Cup. Fans can also enjoy pit-lane walks, driver appearances and live entertainment.

But the biggest attraction remains the battle on the circuit. Six drivers started the weekend with a mathematical chance of becoming champion. Only one can leave with the crown.

When the chequered flag falls on Sunday evening, there could be tears, triumph — and the sort of last-lap drama that makes the DTM one of Europe’s great racing spectacles.

Main Image: By Steffen Prößdorf, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=195366194

Click Here For More Sports at EU Today

At least 30 people have been injured after Russian guided aerial bombs struck residential buildings in the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia. The fate of several residents remains unknown as emergency workers continue searching collapsed apartment blocks.

At least 20 civilians, including three children, have been killed in Russian air strikes on the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia on Saturday morning, 10 October, according to regional authorities. Rescue workers are continuing to search the ruins of residential buildings, with several people still unaccounted for.

The death toll rose from eight to 30 as emergency crews recovered more victims. The Zaporizhzhia regional military administration confirmed that three children were among those killed, while earlier reports recorded 16 injured, including three children. Two of the wounded were in a serious condition.

Authorities had previously reported that 12 people remained missing, although they did not provide a revised figure after the death toll increased. Rescue operations continued amid concerns that further victims could be trapped beneath collapsed concrete and other debris.

Apartment Buildings Destroyed by Guided Bombs

Russian forces launched the attack shortly before dawn, using guided aerial bombs against residential areas of Zaporizhzhia. According to the regional administration’s preliminary assessment, one five-storey apartment building suffered a direct hit and was destroyed, while part of another residential block collapsed.

The attack damaged at least 26 residential buildings in the Shevchenkivskyi and Voznesenivskyi districts, comprising 23 apartment blocks and three private houses. Three buildings sustained particularly extensive damage, while non-residential properties were also affected.

Firefighters, police officers and medical personnel were deployed to the affected neighbourhoods, supported by municipal workers and local residents. Emergency crews continued removing debris and examining unstable structures while officials assessed the extent of the destruction.

The Ukrainian National Police said that officers were documenting the consequences of the attack, including damage to civilian infrastructure. Investigators were also recording evidence for possible war crimes proceedings.

Search Continues as Casualty Figures Rise

The scale of the destruction has complicated efforts to establish the number of victims. The initial casualty figures increased repeatedly as rescuers gained access to damaged buildings and recovered bodies.

Earlier in the morning, authorities reported four deaths. The figure subsequently rose to seven, then eight, before reaching 11 shortly after midday. The number of injured also increased as information emerged from hospitals and emergency services.

At 10.15am local time, 16 people were confirmed wounded. Three were children, while two patients were described as seriously injured. The regional administration said most of the remaining casualties were in a condition of moderate severity.

Officials warned that the casualty figures could change as operations continued. The authorities had not established how many of those initially reported missing might still be trapped in the wreckage, and the recovery of additional bodies had not been accompanied by a revised missing-person count.

Zaporizhzhia Faces Continued Russian Air Attacks

Zaporizhzhia, an industrial city in south-eastern Ukraine, has remained exposed to Russian aerial attacks throughout the full-scale invasion. Its proximity to Russian-held territory in the surrounding region leaves residential districts vulnerable to aircraft-launched weapons.

Guided aerial bombs present a particular challenge for Ukrainian air defences. Unlike conventional unguided bombs, they can be fitted with glide and guidance systems allowing Russian aircraft to release them from considerable distances. Their substantial explosive payloads can cause extensive structural damage when they strike apartment buildings.

Saturday’s attack comes only three days after Russia launched another large-scale assault across Ukraine, targeting energy infrastructure and residential areas. As EU Today reported on 7 October, that operation killed at least 11 people and caused damage in several Ukrainian cities, including Zaporizhzhia.

The latest fatalities also follow earlier attacks on civilian facilities in the city. In February, Russian drones struck a maternity hospital in Zaporizhzhia, causing a fire and injuring patients.

The repeated strikes have placed continuing pressure on the city’s emergency services, which must respond to new attacks while repairing damage to residential buildings and public infrastructure.

Day of Mourning Declared

The Zaporizhzhia authorities have declared Sunday, 11 October, a day of mourning for those killed in Saturday’s bombardment. The announcement followed confirmation that the death toll had reached 11, including three children.

The Russian attack has also renewed attention to the vulnerability of densely populated urban areas to guided aerial bombs. Under international humanitarian law, deliberate attacks against civilians and indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, while all parties must distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects.

Ukrainian investigators are continuing to document the damage and civilian casualties. The precise circumstances of each impact, including the intended targets, have not yet been independently established.

For the families awaiting news of missing relatives, the immediate priority remains the search beneath the destroyed buildings. As of the latest available information on Saturday, rescue workers were still operating at the sites, and the authorities had warned that the number of dead could rise further.

Russia’s demands for the extradition of International Criminal Court judges and Washington’s sweeping sanctions against the institution have converged within days. The two governments have different grievances, but the consequences of their actions increasingly overlap, raising questions about the political relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the future of international criminal justice.

Russia and the United States have intensified their campaigns against the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost simultaneously, exposing an increasingly consequential convergence between the policies of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

On 8 October, Moscow demanded the extradition of ICC President Tomoko Akane and eight other current and former officials. The following day, Washington announced sanctions against the court as an institution, extending earlier measures against individual judges and prosecutors.

The timing raises an obvious question: are these independent campaigns arising from different disputes with international justice, or do they reflect a broader political understanding between Washington and Moscow?

There is no publicly established evidence of a coordinated operation or an agreement between Trump and Putin to undermine the ICC. Nevertheless, the strategic consequences of their respective actions are remarkably similar. Both weaken an institution pursuing criminal proceedings against political leaders whom the two governments seek to protect.

Different grievances, overlapping interests

Russia’s hostility towards the ICC is directly connected to the arrest warrant issued against Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories.

The court subsequently issued warrants against senior Russian military commanders, including Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, over alleged crimes involving attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

Moscow’s response has been to pursue ICC personnel through its own criminal justice system. The latest extradition demands follow convictions handed down in absentia by a Russian court in December 2025.

Washington’s confrontation with the ICC has a different immediate origin. The Trump administration objects to the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals and Israeli officials, particularly following the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the American campaign as a defence of US sovereignty. Yet the sanctions announced on 9 October are not confined to the Israeli proceedings or any investigation involving American personnel.

They target the institution itself, potentially disrupting financial transactions and commercial relationships essential to its operation. This distinction matters because a court-wide restriction necessarily affects investigations beyond those cited by Washington. That includes Ukraine.

The Anchorage question

The political context cannot be separated from the relationship between Trump and Putin, including their meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025.

The summit formed part of Trump’s efforts to negotiate directly with Moscow over the war in Ukraine. The American president has repeatedly treated relations with Putin as a question of diplomatic bargaining, seeking arrangements that might produce an agreement where conventional Western pressure has failed.

Against this background, suggestions that pressure on the ICC might form part of a wider accommodation with Moscow warrant scrutiny. However, the proposition that Trump specifically offered Putin assistance in neutralising the court during their Anchorage discussions remains unsubstantiated. There is no verified public account establishing such a commitment.

A more defensible conclusion is that Washington’s independently declared campaign against the ICC also advances an important Russian interest. For Putin, the benefit is clear. Measures designed to restrict the court’s financial and administrative capacity could complicate investigations into Russian conduct, irrespective of the American administration’s stated intentions.

The relationship therefore need not involve explicit coordination to produce politically significant results.

Why sanctions against the institution matter

The escalation from targeting individual prosecutors to sanctioning the entire ICC represents a substantial change. Previous American measures imposed personal and financial restrictions on selected officials. The latest approach threatens the broader infrastructure upon which international criminal proceedings depend.

The court requires banking facilities, secure communications, technology services and commercial suppliers. American sanctions can reach beyond US territory because of the international financial system’s dependence on dollar transactions and American service providers.

The ICC had already anticipated this vulnerability. According to details disclosed in September, the institution has pursued alternatives to American software and financial services to reduce its exposure.

Nevertheless, operational continuity and investigative effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing. The court may remain formally functional while facing additional costs, delays and restrictions affecting prosecutors, investigators and international cooperation.

For Ukraine, this is particularly significant. The ICC holds and evaluates evidence connected to alleged Russian war crimes, including the deportation of children and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Its proceedings preserve a judicial process independent of whatever diplomatic settlement Washington and Moscow might eventually negotiate.

Weakening that capacity would not invalidate existing warrants or automatically destroy evidence, but it could make the pursuit of accountability more difficult.

Europe’s response and its limitations

The European Union now faces a dispute with Washington over an institution that European governments have spent decades supporting.

On 9 October, eight governments issued a joint statement, reaffirming their support for the ICC and rejecting the American sanctions. The signatories included Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, Japan and Canada.

The European Commission also indicated that the EU was prepared to take measures necessary to preserve the court’s operations. Such assurances are politically important, but they do not automatically resolve the practical consequences of American restrictions.

European financial institutions and technology suppliers must consider their own exposure to US sanctions. Sustaining the court may require alternative payment arrangements, commercial protections and potentially further European regulatory intervention.

The EU has discussed extending its blocking statute to shield European operators from the effects of American sanctions. Whether that mechanism can provide sufficient protection remains uncertain.

The dispute also extends beyond the ICC’s current investigations. Ukraine and the Council of Europe are developing a separate Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, designed to address jurisdictional limitations preventing the ICC from prosecuting Russia’s leadership for the decision to launch the invasion.

The two institutions have distinct legal mandates, although cooperation between them is envisaged. Undermining the ICC would not automatically prevent the special tribunal from operating, but it would weaken an important part of the wider international accountability framework.

A convergence with consequences for Ukraine

Washington and Moscow have not adopted identical positions towards the ICC. Russia seeks to discredit and punish the officials responsible for pursuing Putin. The Trump administration is attempting to restrict the court’s authority and operational capacity, principally in response to proceedings involving Americans and Israelis.

Yet their actions converge at precisely the point where the ICC’s independence becomes politically inconvenient. The distinction between motive and consequence is essential. It would be premature to describe the American sanctions as evidence of a secret bargain struck in Anchorage. It would be equally mistaken to overlook the assistance these measures could provide to Moscow.

The broader concern is that the United States, traditionally central to Western efforts to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine, is now applying pressure to one of the principal institutions carrying out that work.

For European governments, the immediate question is no longer simply whether they support the International Criminal Court. It is whether they are prepared to protect its practical independence when the political and financial pressure comes not only from Russia, but also from Washington.

Ireland proposes cutting the next EU budget by 8%, with global cooperation and competitiveness taking the deepest cuts, while agriculture and cohesion funding is reduced by only 3%. It also includes a €55bn-a-year package of own resources. EU leaders will discuss the plan on 15-16 October.

US President Donald Trump has accused the Norwegian Nobel Committee of discrediting the Peace Prize after it awarded the 2026 honour to South African jurist Navanethem Pillay, warning Norway that Washington would not forget the decision.

US President Donald Trump has launched an attack on Norway and the Nobel Peace Prize committee after being overlooked for the 2026 award, declaring that the decision had permanently damaged the prize’s credibility and left an indelible stain on the country responsible for selecting its recipient.

Speaking at a campaign rally on Friday, 9 October, Trump insisted that his diplomatic achievements entitled him to the distinction and accused the committee of allowing political ideology to determine its choice.

His remarks followed the announcement that South African lawyer and former United Nations human rights chief Navanethem “Navi” Pillay had received this year’s prize for her contribution to peace and international law.

“The United States of America, represented by me as your president, should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but didn’t,” Trump told supporters.

He described the committee’s decision as disgraceful and embarrassing before issuing a pointed warning: “We will not forget, Norway.”

The American president went further, claiming that the award had been discredited by radical ideologues whom he characterised as opponents of democracy and civilisation. He also questioned Pillay’s qualifications, telling his audience that he had never heard of the South African jurist.

Nobel Committee Recognises International Justice

The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s announcement honoured Pillay’s contribution to peace and international law.

Born in Durban in 1941 under South Africa’s apartheid system, Pillay became a prominent human rights lawyer before serving as a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and subsequently at the International Criminal Court (ICC). She was also UN High Commissioner for Human Rights between 2008 and 2014.

Her judicial career included work on cases involving genocide and sexual violence during the Rwandan conflict. More recently, she chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. Israel rejected the commission’s findings.

The award comes at a contentious moment in Washington’s relations with international judicial institutions. On the same day as the Nobel announcement, the Trump administration introduced new sanctions against the ICC, expanding American restrictions and bringing Washington into conflict with European governments that support the institution.

Trump’s Claims of Diplomatic Success

Trump has repeatedly argued that his interventions in international disputes justify receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. During Friday’s rally, he claimed to have settled eight wars and suggested that he was approaching further breakthroughs involving Iran and Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Those claims remain contested. Several disputes cited by Trump have not resulted in comprehensive peace agreements, while others involved ceasefires or diplomatic arrangements that did not permanently resolve the underlying conflicts.

His administration also participated alongside Israel in the war against Iran earlier this year. Although Washington subsequently pursued a negotiated settlement, the conflict raised questions about the relationship between American military intervention and Trump’s presentation of himself as an international peacemaker.

Trump has likewise maintained that he can secure an end to the war in Ukraine, although Russian military operations continue and no comprehensive settlement has been reached.

The president’s dispute with the Nobel Committee is not new. He has frequently contrasted his diplomatic record with that of former President Barack Obama, who received the prize in 2009, less than a year after taking office.

Machado’s Medal and the Norwegian Connection

Trump’s frustration has also been shaped by his relationship with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who received the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign for democratic rights and political change in Venezuela.

In January 2026, Machado presented her Nobel medal to Trump in a symbolic gesture. However, the Nobel Committee subsequently reaffirmed that a Nobel Prize cannot be transferred to another person, regardless of what happens to the physical medal.

The president’s latest criticism also draws Norway into a dispute over which its government has no direct authority. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an independent five-member committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament, rather than by the Norwegian government.

Under the rules governing the award, the committee is responsible for selecting the individual or organisation judged to have made the greatest contribution to peace in accordance with Alfred Nobel’s will.

Trump’s warning therefore raises a separate diplomatic question: whether his dissatisfaction with an independent committee’s decision will have consequences for relations with Norway, a longstanding NATO ally.

For European governments, the controversy also comes against the background of Washington’s escalating confrontation with international courts. Russia has separately demanded the extradition of ICC President Tomoko Akane and other judicial officials over proceedings connected with the war in Ukraine.

The Nobel Committee’s decision to honour a former ICC judge, just as the institution faces pressure from both Moscow and Washington, has consequently acquired significance beyond the question of Trump’s personal ambitions.

The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize will be formally presented in Oslo on 10 December.

Seventeen minors are among those detained following riots in the Belgian capital that left buses damaged, vehicles burnt and public infrastructure vandalised. Prosecutors have promised criminal proceedings as the government faces mounting opposition to its budget reforms.

Belgian prosecutors have confirmed that 21 people, including 17 minors, have been placed under judicial arrest following violent disturbances in Brussels on Friday, 9 October, when a national trade union demonstration against the federal government’s economic policies was overshadowed by clashes between groups of youths and police.

The Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office announced the updated figures on Saturday morning, reducing the number of judicial arrests previously reported by police while confirming that minors accounted for the substantial majority of those detained. Four adults are also in custody, with questioning scheduled throughout Saturday to determine which cases should proceed to further judicial action.

The disturbances caused extensive damage around Brussels-Central and Brussels-Midi railway stations, where masked youths attacked public transport vehicles, set fires and threw projectiles at officers. The violence occurred separately from the main trade union procession, which police described as peaceful.

Prosecutors promise criminal action

The prosecutor’s office has assigned three additional magistrates to handle cases arising from Friday’s disturbances. Investigations concern suspected arson, vandalism, possession of weapons, threats, armed resistance to police and acts of violence.

In a statement released on Saturday, prosecutors reaffirmed that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are fundamental rights, while warning that criminal conduct during demonstrations would be prosecuted. The authorities said they would respond strictly and systematically to offences committed during the unrest. Investigators have not yet established the total financial cost of the damage.

Friday evening’s preliminary police figures recorded 80 administrative detentions and approximately 30 judicial arrests. The prosecutor’s subsequent announcement identifies 21 people being held judicially; the two figures reflect different reporting stages and categories of detention.

Police reported that groups comprising more than 1,000 people were involved in serious incidents, although this figure does not establish how many individuals personally committed offences. Officers were attacked with glass bottles, cobblestones, bricks, sticks and pyrotechnic devices. Police also reported seizing potentially dangerous materials, including Molotov cocktails and other objects that could have been used as weapons.

Water cannon, tear gas and batons were deployed as officers attempted to disperse groups involved in the disturbances.

Buses attacked and vehicles set alight

Public transport services suffered considerable damage, particularly near Brussels-Midi station, where three STIB-MIVB buses and a De Lijn bus were attacked. The Brussels transport operator said police helped drivers and passengers leave the affected vehicles. No injuries were reported in those incidents.

The De Lijn bus sustained extensive damage while parked at a terminus. Its windows were smashed, its fuel cap was removed and security barriers were thrown inside. The vehicle had to be recovered because it could no longer operate.

A separate STIB-MIVB bus was destroyed during the unrest. Several Poppy car-sharing vehicles, electric scooters and bicycles were also damaged or set alight. Police and fire service vehicles sustained damage, while bus shelters and other street infrastructure were vandalised.

Brussels-Central station was temporarily closed, and access to Brussels-Midi was restricted as police attempted to regain control. Both stations subsequently reopened, although tram services around Brussels-Midi remained disrupted into Friday evening.

Political dispute over responsibility

The disorder has prompted a dispute over who should bear the financial consequences of violence committed during demonstrations. Belgian Interior Minister Bernard Quintin, of the liberal Mouvement Réformateur (MR), condemned the attacks on police and said the state would not be intimidated by those responsible for destruction.

MR chairman Georges-Louis Bouchez went further, proposing legislation that would make trade unions financially liable for damage associated with demonstrations, drawing a comparison with the responsibility imposed on football clubs for the behaviour of supporters.

The proposal raises questions about how responsibility could be established when violence is committed by individuals operating separately from an authorised demonstration. Police have explicitly distinguished Friday’s disturbances from the trade union march, which proceeded without serious incidents.

Wider protests against government reforms

Friday’s demonstration was organised by Belgium’s socialist ABVV-FGTB and Christian ACV-CSC trade unions as opposition intensifies to the economic programme of Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s federal coalition.

The unions oppose proposed spending reductions and changes affecting pensions, unemployment benefits, taxation and purchasing power. Students and teachers also participated, expressing concerns about education funding, deteriorating school infrastructure and the affordability of higher education.

The dispute follows earlier confrontations over the government’s fiscal programme. As EU Today’s coverage of the previous national strike wave detailed, the coalition’s budget agreement in November 2025 failed to prevent widespread industrial action over proposed reductions in public expenditure.

The government argues that reforms are necessary to address Belgium’s persistent budget deficit and growing debt burden. Trade unions maintain that the proposed measures place disproportionate pressure on workers, pensioners and lower-income households.

Further disruption expected on Monday

Public services face another round of industrial action on Monday, 12 October, when socialist trade unions are planning strikes across several sectors.

Flemish public transport operator De Lijn expects to operate approximately 61 per cent of its normal bus and tram services, with substantial regional differences. In Antwerp city, only 45 per cent of services are expected to run, compared with 57 per cent across Antwerp province.

Belgian rail services will also be affected from 10pm on Sunday until the end of Monday. Disruption is anticipated in schools, postal services and public broadcasting.

The City of Brussels has warned of disruption to municipal administrative services on both 9 and 12 October as a consequence of the national trade union actions.

Meanwhile, Brussels prosecutors will continue questioning those arrested on Friday, with decisions on possible charges and referrals to the appropriate courts expected to depend on the evidence gathered.

Ukrainian national police said Russian forces had targeted residential areas of Zaporizhzhia with five guided aerial bombs early on Saturday, with two of them striking blocks of flats.

First published in Deník N.

Until Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Czech Vanadium was among the European companies which clearly had Russian owners.

Since 2007, the company has been controlled through the Evraz group by Russian businessman Roman Abramovich, who is close to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

The ferrovanadium producer was part of a chain through which vanadium ore mined in Russia reached Europe before being sent on to Abramovich’s factories in the US. Ferrovanadium is an alloy added to steel to help improve its properties. And Czech Republic accounts for six percent of global production.

But sanctions following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 forced the oligarch to sell up.

Evraz, the holding company in which Abramovich is the largest shareholder, supplied the Russian army, according to media reports. But Evraz denied this.

In 2024, the Abu Dhabi-based company Metco (now ‘Metco Holding’) became the sole shareholder in the Czech factory, but it is not clear who controls it.

Czech authorities and police suspect the transfer of the vanadium factory to a new parent company in the UAE may conceal the true owner. They are seeking to establish who is really behind the opaque company in the Persian Gulf, and whether it is still Roman Abramovich.

According to Deník N sources familiar with the investigation, specialists from Czech police bodies for organised crime (NCOZ) and the financial intelligence unit (FAÚ) are involved.

“Yes, we are investigating who is behind the company. There are many leads and the suspicion is clear that the company may still be backed by its former owners from Russia,” a source close to the investigation confirmed.

NCOZ spokesperson Jaroslav Ibehej declined to comment in more detail on the search for Czech Vanadium’s beneficial owner. “As a rule, we neither confirm nor deny what we are working on,” he said.

According to documents in the Czech judicial database, the company is formally controlled by one owner — a Dubai-based lawyer of Indian origin who provides nominee services for beneficial owners. The lawyer has been linked to money-laundering investigations in Ukraine and Moldova.

Apparent fake owner scheme

The officially declared owner of Czech Vanadium is Nikhil Skariah Kolekunnel. According to the ADGM free zone business register in the UAE, he is both the sole shareholder and director of Metco Holding.

However, the Gulf state’s database does not disclose so-called beneficiaries, who are entitled to the company’s profits and may also secretly control it.

Although the Czech judicial register lists Skariah as Czech Vanadium’s beneficial owner, this does not necessarily indicate the person exercising control in the background. For example, trustees of trust funds are also listed in the registers as beneficial owners.

The nature of Skariah Kolekunnel’s business suggests that he performs the specific role of an administrator, a so-called fiduciary — someone who accepts an ownership mandate and effectively manages another person’s assets.

He is a lawyer originally from India who founded two law firms in the UAE years ago. His companies represent large corporations and businesspeople who do not wish to publicly acknowledge ownership of a business.

“South Bridge Legal is an advisory firm for comprehensive business establishment in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and the UAE. Our highly experienced team has been active in the sector for more than 10 years, providing services tailored to the unique needs of every ambitious entrepreneur setting up companies in Dubai,” the company wrote on its website.

“We have all activities, which is tax management, tax consulting, accounting, corporate services, offshore company formation, free zone company formation…everything,” Skariah said in a recently published video on YouTube.

Metco Holding’s address in Abu Dhabi suggests it may be a shell company. And it is headquartered from a WeWork.

Moldova and Ukraine links

‘Skariah’, the name of the Indian administrator, had already emerged eight years ago in connection with the concealment of ownership structures during an investigation into the privatisation of Moldova’s national airline. At the time, Skariah appeared as the owner of the opaque company Gold Craft FZE, established in Dubai in 2015.

“On Monday 1 October 2018, one day before the privatisation agreement for Air Moldova was signed, a plane from Istanbul landed at Chișinău International Airport. One of the passengers, a 39-year-old man, was carrying nearly €2.6m in cash in his luggage. He declared the money to customs officers, which, according to the Office for the Prevention and Fight against Money Laundering, he had borrowed four days earlier from Gold Craft FZE in the United Arab Emirates,” the investigative outlet RISE Moldova reported.

It finds that Andrei Ianovici brought cash from Dubai, equivalent to tens of millions of Czech crowns. Later that day, he deposited the money in a bank, and it ended up in the accounts of Civil Aviation Group SRL. That company privatised Air Moldova, and Ianovici was one of its partners.

The true origin of the money was never established, leading local investigators to suspect that the money had not been earned legally. No charges were brought, however.

According to court records, Skariah was also involved in disputes in Ukraine, where Gold Craft FZE claimed ownership of an Ilyushin aircraft which the company allegedly purchased in 2017.

Skariah’s Russian-linked empire

However, the UAE-based lawyer was not the only individual to have emerged as an administrator of Czech Vanadium. Another is Sergei Gushchin.

A man of this name was formerly a prominent Russian businessman in rail freight transport and, although he withdrew from Russia three years ago, he appears on Ukrainian sanctions lists for supporting the Russian army.

Gushchin became a senior manager at PJSC TransContainer, a Russian rail freight carrier, after Evraz sold its stake. In the past, a quarter of the company was owned by the holding company of Abramovich.

Meanwhile another of Gushchin’s companies, Rail Service, formed a joint venture with Evraz in 2019 focused on the production of railway wheels.

According to a UAE register, Gushchin was a director and shareholder of Metco, which became Czech Vanadium’s parent company from 2022-23.

US credit-rating agency Moody’s shared data with Deník N that listed Gushchin as a recent beneficiary of Metco Holding and as the company’s director.

Russia’s ferrovanadium monopoly

Czech Vanadium’s revenues regularly exceed €81m, and in 2024 the company reported profits of more than €8m. This summer, the company sent over €0.6m of that sum to the Dubai company, the remaining funds staying in its retained earnings account.

Last year, the company recorded a modest €0.2m loss. Its accounts retained more than €12m in undistributed profits in total.

Czech Vanadium’s business remains closely tied to Russia. Last year alone, vanadium oxides or hydroxides worth nearly €82m were imported into the Czech Republic from the Russian Federation. Russia is effectively the sole supplier of the raw materials needed to produce ferrovanadium. According to the statistical office database, exports mainly go to the United States, as well as Germany and Taiwan.

Czech Vanadium did not reply to requests for comment or an explanation of its ownership structure.

It also did not answer the question of how a Dubai lawyer had bought the Czech company, which, according to some estimates, is worth more than €40m.

Company representatives have not responded to questions about its owners since 2024, when the company left the Evraz group structure.

Fake owner model in US

Jiří Skuhrovec, an analyst at Datlab, specialises in the global vetting of business partners. He says Abramovich uses a similar model for concealing ownership in the United States.

Sanctions also forced the Russian oligarch, who became better known through his former ownership of the British football club Chelsea, to withdraw from US companies. But Skuhrovec concluded that they were probably still controlled by people linked to Abramovich just like the factory in Czech Republic.

“We mapped the entire chain, from the Russian ore supplier through the Czech smelter to the final recipient: the US company Strategic Alloys LLC. Until recently, all three companies officially belonged to Abramovich, and all three are now controlled by people with links to his Evraz group. Abramovich may therefore still secretly control the entire supply chain for this strategic raw material. This would be a textbook case of sanctions circumvention, as well as an obvious security risk,” Skuhrovec said.

Findings led Datlab and Transparency International to submit a complaint to police. “We believe that the 16m Czech crowns (around €655,000) in distributed profit may have gone to Abramovich, who is on a sanctions list. That would constitute a criminal offence,” the analyst explained.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday said that Ukraine needs a new president “who can make a deal” to end the war, and called on Ukrainian ‌President Volodymyr ⁠Zelensky to his forces from targeting Russian oil refineries. This came after Washington moved to ease sanctions on Russian diesel and Moscow's continued strikes on Ukraine killed at least 21 people, including four children. Read our liveblog to see how the day's events unfolded.

US President Donald Trump blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a stalemate in negotiations with Moscow, as Russian strikes on Ukraine killed at least 20 people, damaging apartment buildings and energy sites.

French astronaut Sophie Adenot said she experienced “the full range of human emotions, from the most joyful to the most difficult” during her eight months in space, speaking on Saturday in Cologne, Germany, in her first public appearance since returning to Earth.