Why Trump’s Nobel ambitions clash with the committee’s political outlook, and why Navi Pillay may help restore the award’s credibility
The Nobel Peace Prize has never been a straightforward affair. For a start, it isn’t awarded by the same institutions responsible for the other Nobel Prizes, but by a committee of five people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. These five individuals decide who has done the most for world peace, although their understanding of that concept has long been influenced by political considerations.
Controversial decisions are hardly a recent development. Take Cordell Hull, the former US secretary of state, who received the prize in 1945 for his contribution to establishing the United Nations.
Hull was an accomplished diplomat, but why him? The prize could just as easily have gone to Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who headed Moscow’s delegation at the San Francisco conference, or Andrey Gromyko, who subsequently led it, given the Soviet delegation played an important role in shaping the organization, including provisions intended to prevent another world war.
Yet Hull received the honor because, by then, Washington was already consolidating its influence over Western Europe, and American political preferences were increasingly reflected in international institutions.
Hull himself was hardly beyond controversy and before the war, his attitude towards Nazi Germany wasn’t always what modern admirers might expect. Indeed, even Adolf Hitler was once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, although that nomination was a protest rather than a serious endorsement.
After 1945, the award increasingly reflected Western political priorities as American and British figures became more prominent, while recipients from countries traditionally associated with the prize, including Norway and Switzerland, became less so.
Among those honored elsewhere were anti-apartheid campaigners and political figures whose contributions to peace were considerably more debatable.
Consider Lech Walesa and Mikhail Gorbachev. Both became international symbols of political transformation, but the consequences of those transformations weren’t universally peaceful as Gorbachev’s weakness contributed to the Soviet collapse, followed by conflicts across the Caucasus and other upheavals. The withdrawal of Soviet support also helped bring about the eventual collapse of Afghanistan’s secular government.
These developments were celebrated in the West as victories for freedom, even though their human consequences were rather more complicated.
Perhaps the most extraordinary decision of the modern era, however, was the award to Barack Obama in 2009.
Obama had been president for barely nine months and he had scarcely begun implementing his foreign policy, let alone demonstrated its lasting contribution to peace, so even he appeared surprised.
American anti-war activist Brian Becker offered a memorable explanation, describing it as the prize Obama received for not being George W. Bush.
There was also Al Gore, who shared the 2007 award for his work drawing attention to climate change, but at least Gore received only half the prize, whereas Obama was given the entire honor, apparently on the strength of expectations.
A closer examination of the laureates suggests another interesting pattern: the influence of political ideas associated with America’s Democratic Party.
Four US presidents who received the prize were Democrats, as was Gore, while anti-apartheid campaigners and other human rights activists have also featured prominently. These causes have generally enjoyed greater sympathy among American liberals than among the industrial and conservative interests traditionally associated with the Republicans.
This helps explain Donald Trump’s determination to become the first Republican president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
Trump has approached the matter with characteristic vigor, apparently believing that diplomatic achievements and his celebrated ability to negotiate deals might eventually persuade the committee, but he has misunderstood the institution.
The American establishment isn’t simply a collection of officials who can be persuaded through bargaining because its liberal ideology is deeply embedded in universities, international organizations, government departments and the professional classes from which their personnel are drawn.
These networks survive changes of administration because they are sustained by shared beliefs rather than individual political appointments. The Nobel Committee operates within much the same intellectual environment. Its members don’t need instructions from Washington, much less envelopes stuffed with money, to favor candidates whose political outlook resembles their own and Trump, by contrast, represents almost everything that this crowd dislikes.
Last year, the committee passed him over and awarded the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, a prominent critic of Nicolas Maduro.
Machado subsequently demonstrated that she, too, understood the art of political theater when, in a remarkable gesture, she presented her Nobel medal to Trump.
I have admired her ever since because, whatever one thinks of her politics, it was an elegant and spectacular move, combining personal generosity with an unmistakable political calculation.
Trump, naturally, accepted the medal and his administration subsequently moved against Maduro, dramatically changing Venezuela’s political circumstances while leaving its human rights campaigners with considerably less influence over events.
But a medal is only a medal and the honor itself cannot be transferred, therefore Trump has still not become the first Republican president to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and I doubt he ever will.
This year, perhaps having learned from the controversy surrounding its previous decision, the committee chose a safer candidate in South African human rights lawyer Navanethem Pillay, a former UN high commissioner for human rights.
Pillay belongs to another category traditionally favored by the committee, prominent figures from the UN and international human rights institutions.
In that sense, she represents an almost ideal choice as she is internationally recognized, professionally accomplished, and associated with causes that command considerable support within the liberal international establishment.
Her career hasn’t been without controversy, given critics in South Africa have questioned her Western connections, while her position on Palestine has attracted fierce criticism in Israel.
Nevertheless, Pillay is a substantial figure whose achievements deserve recognition and unlike some previous recipients, she can’t reasonably be accused of having been plucked from obscurity or rewarded merely for her celebrity.
She is, in short, the sort of compromise candidate the Nobel Peace Prize badly needed as the institution’s decline in credibility has been evident for decades, but perhaps this year’s decision suggests that the committee is finally beginning to understand the dangers of turning the world’s most prestigious peace award into an instrument of political fashion.
For the moment, at least, the decline has been arrested.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
American arms production will mostly be for replenishing Pentagon inventories, according to Matthew Whitaker
European countries should expand their own arms production because American factories will largely be occupied with supplying the US military, Washington’s envoy to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, has said.
US defense spending could reach $1–1.5 trillion in 2026, leaving limited manufacturing capacity for foreign buyers, Whitaker said at the Warsaw Security Forum on Monday. “The US needs friends with manufacturing capacity,” Whitaker said, urging Europe to increase output to meet its own growing weapons demand.
The warning comes as Washington struggles to replenish missile stocks depleted by its war against Iran. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that US forces had fired over 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles by late May, representing nearly a third of its stockpiles. It also used over 1,500 high-end Patriot interceptors, or about 65% of its reserves, as of late July. Reuters also reported in August that the US army had used “virtually all” of its high-precision long-range missiles.
Bloomberg reported last month that NATO members faced delivery delays of up to several years as Washington prioritized rebuilding its own inventories. Germany’s requests for accelerated Tomahawk deliveries were unlikely to be fulfilled within five years, according to the report.
Europe has continued to suffer weapon shortages after donating billions worth of arms to Ukraine. A European Defence Agency assessment presented in September identified significant shortages in air and missile defense, ammunition and other essential capabilities. Efforts to manufacture Patriot interceptors in Germany have also yet to bear fruit.
Whitaker said that Europe ranks fourth among Washington’s security priorities, behind homeland security, the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. Nevertheless, he reassured European officials that “we still love you,” and that the US “isn’t stepping back” but “just asking you to step forward.”
He also urged NATO to modernize bases, supply chains for fuel, and deployment arrangements to move forces and equipment from Western to Eastern Europe, “where we would expect any future conflict.” He announced no new relocation decisions.
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has moved to reduce US military commitments in Europe. He has repeatedly criticized NATO members for insufficient spending and demanded that they assume greater responsibility for their own defense.
European governments have meanwhile been ramping up military spending, citing allegations that Russia could attack a NATO country by the end of the decade. Moscow has repeatedly rejected claims that it plans to attack Europe, but has warned that NATO would face a full military response if it attacked Russia first.
The humanoid sex pest was filmed thrusting at multiple women
German police have seized a humanoid robot that allegedly groped a 16-year-old girl on the streets of Cologne, and are investigating its owner for sexual harassment.
Officers seized the robot in the early hours of Sunday morning after it “allegedly touched a 16-year-old girl’s buttocks and made thrusting motions against her,” according to a statement from Cologne Police.
The teenage girl was standing outside a fast food restaurant with her friends when the robot approached her from behind and made obscene motions, the statement continued. Shortly afterwards, officers found the robot in the trunk of a nearby car and confiscated it, along with the mobile phones of its 16-year-old owner and his 19-year-old accomplice.
The red and gold robot, modeled on Marvel’s ‘Iron Man’, was seen in an evidence photo clad in a white vest, a gold chain, and a stick-on mustache.
Police are now “examining how the robot was functioning at the time of the incident and whether someone was deliberately controlling its movements.” The two teenagers operating the droid – who live-streamed the incident online – are being investigated on suspicion of sexual harassment.
Video footage shared on TikTok showed the sex-pest robot, named ‘Ahmed’ by his owner and accomplice, harassing multiple women. The droid made masturbatory hand gestures and thrusting motions at several women as his alleged operators laughed, and approached one woman from behind, causing her to scream. It is unclear if this is the incident that triggered the investigation.
According to Germany’s criminal code, sexual assault requires contact between perpetrator and victim. Acts “carried out by machines or by third parties” do not rise to the level of assault, The German Federal Court of Justice ruled in 2021. If found guilty of sexual harassment, however, the suspects could face a fine or up to two years in prison.
Around 617 million children are living in acute poverty, accounting for more than half of those affected worldwide
Global poverty has risen for the first time since 2010, with 1.2 billion people facing acute deprivation, according to a new UN report.
The study, released on Monday by the UN Development Program (UNDP) and the University of Oxford, found that the number of people living in acute poverty has increased by 51.5 million compared with the previous assessment. The increase is the first recorded since the global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) was introduced in 2010.
The report, which includes 108 countries, measures poverty beyond income, examining deprivation in health, education, and living standards. It uses ten indicators, including nutrition, child mortality, schooling, access to clean water and electricity, sanitation, and housing conditions. People are classified as living in acute poverty if their households are deprived in at least one-third of the weighted indicators.
Nearly half of those living in poverty – 534 million people – face ‘severe’ deprivation, meaning they lack at least half of the basic necessities measured by the index. Another 952 million people are considered vulnerable to poverty, experiencing significant deprivation without meeting the threshold for acute poverty, the UNDP said.
The 2026 global Multidimensional Poverty Index reports the 1st rise in the number of people living in #MultidimensionalPoverty since 2010. Yet, 33 countries have halved their MPI value in fewer than 15 years showing that progress is possible. Learn more: https://t.co/XJmwpCaz4p https://t.co/mHsGDGzj1p
Children account for more than half of those affected, at 617 million. Over 80% live in rural areas. Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest number of people living in poverty, with 616 million, followed by South Asia with 393 million.
UNDP Administrator Alexander De Croo described the increase as a “wake-up call for the world,” warning that millions of people face hardships that reinforce the others, including hunger, missed schooling, and lack of basic services.
The report said population growth contributed to the increase, along with changes in poverty levels and differences in the data used to measure deprivation.
Despite the global rise, several countries have made progress. Egypt, Nepal, and Tajikistan recorded significant declines in both the share and number of people living in poverty. Nigeria, however, saw earlier gains reversed, with poverty increasing again in the 2020s.
Overall, 33 countries have halved their poverty index scores in less than 15 years. China recorded the fastest reduction among countries with available data. Vietnam and Eswatini also made significant progress.
A World Bank assessment released in September estimated that more than 824 million people worldwide – around one in ten – were living on less than $3 a day in 2024.
The film ‘NAZA’ drew on 24 anonymous sources accusing Israeli military of killing Palestinians in Gaza using AI
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for a criminal investigation into anonymous sources depicted as Israeli soldiers in a documentary alleging that the country’s military used AI-powered targeting systems to kill civilians in Gaza, according to a letter released by the premier’s office, as cited by The Times of Israel.
NAZA, an 80-minute-long film – the name alludes to an Israeli military shorthand for expected “collateral casualties” – is based on the accounts of anonymous Israeli military and intelligence insiders alleging that the IDF heavily relied on AI systems to identify people and homes for attack on a massive scale, often disregarding collateral civilian casualties. Some insiders described the process as “insanely fun” and akin to a “video game.” Israeli insiders allege in the film that the IDF used an AI system called Lavender to identify assassination targets, relying on data from thousands of hacked phones. Even the phrase “daddy’s home” detected on a child’s phone could reportedly trigger an attack.
The documentary, directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, received a 25-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival and won the Special Jury Prize.
The IDF has rejected the allegations, arguing that the identities of the whistleblowers “cannot be verified” and casting doubt on whether the interviewed sources served in the military at all.
On Monday, Netanyahu called on IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, chief of Israel’s domestic security service David Zini and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to launch a criminal probe into the soldiers who appeared anonymously in the documentary over what he described as “serious information security offenses, criminal defamation, and harming Israel’s diplomatic and security interests.” The prime minister stressed that investigators must identify those involved.
According to the letter released by Netanyahu’s office, those involved in the film may have committed criminal offenses, including leaking classified information and breaching security at a highly sensitive intelligence unit.
Immediately after the film premiered at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival on September 10, several senior Israeli politicians condemned its creators. Culture Minister Miki Zohar went as far as accusing the two Oscar-winning directors of treason and threatening to strip them of their Israeli citizenship.
At the time, Netanyahu pledged to seek new legislation giving West Jerusalem the power to strip citizenship from people who smear Israeli soldiers.
The IDF has acknowledged using AI for military purposes, including a system known as The Gospel that rapidly generates targeting recommendations. In April 2024, media reports citing Israeli intelligence sources said Lavender had flagged about 37,000 people as suspected terrorists, with personnel sometimes spending only seconds reviewing its recommendations. Sources cited by The Guardian also alleged that, in the war’s early weeks, the military permitted the killing of 15 to 20 civilians in strikes on low-ranking militants. The IDF has rejected the allegations.
Donald Trump earlier said he was considering joining Riyadh’s campaign against the Iran-backed movement in Yemen
Yemen’s Houthis have warned the US against joining Saudi Arabia’s military campaign, threatening to strike American forces if Washington intervenes in the escalating conflict.
The confrontation has intensified following deadly Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s main international airport. An attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh on Saturday killed at least 13 people, including an American national, and injured more than 300, according to the latest figures. Another strike on Sunday left one person dead and 11 injured.
Speaking to RT on Sunday, officials in Houthi-controlled Sanaa warned that US military involvement would trigger retaliation, including against American warships in the Red Sea and the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The warning followed remarks by US President Donald Trump that Washington was “going to look at” joining Saudi strikes against the Iran-backed movement.
The latest escalation comes amid renewed fighting in Yemen’s decade-long conflict. The Houthis made major territorial gains along the Red Sea coast and around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in September, including capturing the port city of Mocha. Saudi-backed government forces have since launched a counteroffensive, claiming to have recaptured key positions near the vital shipping route linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.
Riyadh has stepped up airstrikes in support of the Yemeni government offensive, while the Houthis have vowed to continue targeting Saudi airports and infrastructure until the kingdom ends its military campaign and blockade of Yemen.
RT correspondent Jamal al-Ashwal reports from Sanaa on the escalating conflict, the Houthis’ warnings to Washington, and the need for a diplomatic solution.
A wave of stabbings and online threats has prompted a nationwide security crackdown, with nearly 80,000 school inspections carried out
Poland has deployed more than 20,000 police officers nationwide following a series of school stabbings and online threats, launching a sweeping security crackdown that has resulted in dozens of arrests.
The emergency measures follow three stabbing attacks in four days that left one person dead and more than a dozen injured. Threats of further violence circulating online have fueled widespread alarm, prompting some schools to suspend classes and parents to keep their children at home.
Police announced on Monday that officers conducted nearly 80,000 inspections of educational institutions, detained 135 people, and identified 311 suspected criminal offenses.
“Police operations are still underway throughout Poland to ensure the safety of children, young people, and all employees of educational institutions,” the national police headquarters said, adding that officers are monitoring online threats around the clock.
Interior Minister Marcin Kierwinski ordered the nationwide operation on Sunday, stepping up patrols inside and around schools. He confirmed that 24,000 officers have been mobilized.
“There will be no tolerance for any attacks on Polish children, nor for the descent of public life into anarchy,” Kierwinski told state broadcaster TVP Info.
Police have also detained teenagers suspected of planning attacks or posting violent threats online.
In one case, investigators discovered that a boy had recreated his school in the online game Roblox and simulated attacks on fellow students. Police said they found a firearm, ammunition, and knives in his possession.
The security operation follows three stabbing incidents in less than a week.
On Wednesday, a 19-year-old attacked students, teachers, and passersby at a vocational school in Ostroleka, north of Warsaw, injuring nine people before being arrested.
The following day, a 15-year-old former pupil wearing a helmet-mounted camera fatally stabbed a school caretaker and wounded two teachers in Leszczydol-Nowiny, northeast of the capital.
On Saturday, three people were injured in another stabbing at a further education college in Warsaw. A woman was detained in connection with the attack.
The violence was followed by a surge in social media threats of a ‘Bloody Friday’ campaign targeting schools, further fueling public fears.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned of a growing “fascination with violence” among young people, describing it as a disturbing trend both in Poland and worldwide.
The authorities, however, said investigators found no evidence that the attacks were coordinated, warning that misinformation and unverified threats circulating online contributed to public panic.
American technology infrastructure in the Gulf could be targeted if Washington resumes strikes, Mohsen Rezaei has warned
Iran will destroy US technology infrastructure in the Gulf if Washington attacks again, the secretary of its Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, has warned.
Speaking to Press TV in an interview aired over the weekend, Rezaei singled out US assets in the United Arab Emirates and around the Strait of Hormuz. He estimated their value at more than $2 trillion and described them as the “pulse of the American economy in this region.”
“We have not yet included these assets among our targets. But if war breaks out, many of these cables, data centers, artificial intelligence facilities, and numerous other sites will be destroyed,” he said.
Rezaei said that Tehran had deliberately held back some military capabilities during earlier fighting, but is prepared to deploy them and “face the enemy with a much broader and more extensive plan” if hostilities resume.
The US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran on February 28. Although fighting has since subsided, Washington’s naval blockade of Iranian ports continues, while shipping through Hormuz remains disrupted.
Diplomatic contacts have continued through Pakistan, Qatar, and Iraq. Rezaei said Washington had accepted some of Tehran’s seven conditions for resolving the conflict but left others unclear, making its response inadequate.
Iran’s demands include lifting the naval blockade, ending hostilities on all fronts, and releasing frozen assets. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that exchanges through mediators were continuing and Tehran was reviewing Washington’s latest points.
US President Donald Trump previously rejected the Iranian proposal, saying that Tehran wanted “to make a deal, but it is not the deal that I want to make.” He has also suggested that US strikes could resume.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also stated last week that Tehran had “lost complete control” over the Strait of Hormuz and that oil flows were approaching prewar levels.
Rezaei, however, has rejected Washington’s claims that the strait was open and insisted Iran would retain control over the waterway. He also accused the US Central Command chief of directing oil-smuggling operations with UAE military support.
Amid the contradictory statements from Washington and Tehran, security risks in the key waterway persist. Last week, an oil tanker was struck near Oman, injuring 12 crew members. No side claimed responsibility.
Meanwhile, oil prices have continued to fluctuate in response to the Middle East crisis. Brent crude rose above $106 a barrel on Monday as Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia added to concerns over regional supplies. Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser warned that pressure on the energy chain would intensify until Hormuz fully reopened.
European leaders who provoke Moscow are incompetent and “unbelievably reckless,” the Columbia University professor warned
European leaders who threaten nuclear-armed Russia while assuming there will be no consequences are displaying “suicidal” incompetence and ignore basic realities, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs has said.
In an interview with Afshin Rattansi on ‘Going Underground’ published on Monday, Sachs described the dismissal of Russian warnings that a direct conflict with NATO could escalate into nuclear war as “unbelievably reckless.”
Smaller European NATO nations that engage in hostile rhetoric act “a little bit like Israel... even radically more so,” believing the US will protect them in an actual conflict, he said.
“This is actually not how the world works and they are so reckless and stupid to talk in these terms,” Sachs stressed.
The West’s broader confrontation with Russia, which Sachs maintains was provoked by NATO’s 2008 declaration that Ukraine would eventually become a member, reflects “not only war profiteering” but also“a tremendous amount of incompetence and cowardice and unwillingness of these politicians to admit basic truths.”
Sachs also criticized US President Donald Trump for failing to follow through on an agreement he reached last year with Russian President Vladimir Putin to wind down the Ukraine conflict.
He lamented the UN’s inability to fulfill its role as guardian of world peace, arguing that Washington routinely disregards international rules.
“Essentially, the United States says: ‘We don’t obey any rules,’” he said.
The US tech giant is suppressing ads ahead of a runoff against Flavio Bolsonaro, the president’s team says
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s campaign has accused US tech giant Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, of interfering in the country’s presidential election in favor of his right-wing rival, Flavio Bolsonaro.
In a statement on Saturday, Lula’s Workers’ Party (PT) accused Meta of repeatedly restricting its campaign activities while failing to provide convincing explanations. “The complete lack of transparency in the company’s systems makes these explanations scarce and opaque,” the statement read.
The campaign said the latest incident occurred between October 9 and 10, when Meta allegedly prevented Lula’s official Instagram account from boosting posts. It also claimed that the view count on one of Lula’s Instagram posts stopped increasing on October 8, affecting its reach, with similar problems registered on other accounts supporting the incumbent.
An internal analysis also suggested that Meta’s algorithms were skewed in favor of Bolsonaro, Lula’s campaign alleged, adding that posts on the right-wing contender’s page generated, on average, 2.96 times as much engagement as Lula’s, despite Bolsonaro having 17.2% fewer followers.
Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court subsequently ordered Meta to provide detailed technical explanations within 48 hours as well as to preserve relevant advertising data, moderation records, and audience metrics.
Meta has denied the allegations as “simply false and unsupported by the facts,” insisting that many of the technical problems were not limited to Brazil or specific accounts and that it is committed to treating all users equally.
The accusations against the US tech giant come amid a closely contested presidential race. Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro – who is serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup following his 2022 election defeat – received 47.03% of the vote in the first round, compared with Lula’s 45.16%. The two are due to face each other in a runoff on October 25.
US President Donald Trump has described Jair Bolsonaro’s prosecution as a “witch hunt,” with Washington imposing steep tariffs on Brazilian goods. While the US leader has stopped short of endorsing Bolsonaro Jr., Lula has described him as a “Trump candidate.”
Just days before the first round of the vote, Meta blocked the advertising account on Facebook used by Lula’s campaign, preventing it from running new ads. While the account was restored within hours, Meta offered no specific explanation for the suspension.
Earlier this month, Brazilian authorities requested an investigation into alleged US funding for activities intended to interfere with the elections and undermine the Supreme Federal Court. The move followed a Guardian report claiming that the Trump administration had earmarked $1 million for a project called ‘Countering Lawfare and Censorship in Brazil’. However, Brazil’s Federal Police later closed its preliminary review, citing insufficient evidence to open a criminal investigation.
Last month, Lula’s campaign accused Trump of seeking to “colonize” Brazil in a bid to gain access to its natural resources.
Capital punishment is an attack on human dignity, Leo XIV argued as Catholic leaders oppose plans to broadcast the Fort Hood shooter’s execution
Pope Leo has condemned capital punishment as an attack on human dignity amid growing criticism of the US military’s plans to livestream the execution of the convicted Fort Hood shooter.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced last week that Nidal Malik Hasan would face a military firing squad on December 3. President Donald Trump has confirmed that he personally authorized the broadcast.
Writing on X on Saturday on the international World Day Against the Death Penalty, Leo criticized capital punishment as a concept, but did not name Hasan or directly address the livestream.
“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” the pontiff wrote, adding that “the common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment.” Leo argued that effective detention protects citizens without denying offenders the possibility of redemption.
His remarks reflect the Catholic Church’s established opposition to executions. The previous pope, Francis, revised the Vatican’s official teaching in 2018 to declare capital punishment inadmissible.
Senior Catholic officials also explicitly condemned the planned broadcast on Friday. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin called it “unacceptable to turn death into a spectacle,” adding that “however guilty the person may be, there are other ways.”
Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, also described the decision as “a barbaric promotion of a culture of death” and urged Washington to reconsider.
Hasan, a former US Army psychiatrist, killed 13 people and wounded 32 at Fort Hood in November 2009. A military court sentenced him to death in 2013.
Hegseth has defended public viewing of the execution, arguing that “people need to understand there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”
Capital punishment remains in use in the US, with methods varying by jurisdiction. Firing squads are permitted in Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah, although the method is rarely used.
If carried out, Hasan’s execution would be the US military’s first since 1961 and its first by firing squad since 1945. Broadcasting it live to the public would be unprecedented.
The controversy also follows a botched lethal-injection attempt in Tennessee, where death-row inmate Christa Pike survived two doses of pentobarbital and was hospitalized last month. She had been sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of classmate Colleen Slemmer.
Kiev’s continued attacks on Russian oil refineries are undermining Washington’s efforts to lower diesel prices, Alex Bruesewitz has said
Vladimir Zelensky should no longer be treated as a “good ally” after Kiev’s continued strikes on Russian oil refineries have threatened US efforts to lower diesel prices, Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz has said. He accused the Ukrainian leader of undermining US President Donald Trump and hurting American consumers.
In a post on X on Sunday, Bruesewitz blasted Zelensky in response to a comment by conservative activist Laura Loomer, who had defended the Ukrainian leader following an interview she did with him this summer. Loomer said Zelensky had praised Trump and “is eager to sign a deal to end the war” with Russia, provided it did not amount to Ukraine’s unconditional surrender.
“He called the President ‘weak’ two days ago and bombed oil refineries moments after the President announced a deal with Russia. Let’s stop pretending that he’s a good ally,” Bruesewitz wrote.
Taking a swipe at Loomer, Bruesewitz suggested that if she was “still in communication with” Zelensky, she “should tell him to stop undermining Trump and hurting the American people with his actions.”
In a separate post, Bruesewitz accused Zelensky of disregarding US interests by pressing ahead with the strikes. “Zelensky is not being a friend to the American people,” he wrote.
The criticism comes after Trump reached a diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, following repeated US requests for Kiev to halt attacks on Russian oil infrastructure. The agreement is aimed at easing global fuel shortages that have sent American energy prices soaring.
Washington subsequently eased sanctions on Russian diesel exports until April 2027, while Moscow pledged to supply 300,000 tons in October, 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons in December. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak said monthly deliveries could eventually reach 3 million tons and announced that Moscow was lifting its export restrictions ahead of schedule.
Zelensky called Trump’s move a “weak decision,” arguing that it would provide Russia with additional revenue.
Trump hit back, accusing Zelensky of ignoring US warnings against attacking refineries and repeatedly rejecting opportunities to end the conflict with Russia. He also called for the Ukrainian leader to be replaced.
“Zelensky could have settled this war many times. Many, many times. And he chooses not to,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, adding: “I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal.”
Zelensky’s mandate as president expired in 2024, but he has retained power since, citing martial law. Putin has repeatedly stressed that this could undermine an eventual peace deal signed with Kiev.
On Sunday, Trump unexpectedly announced an immediate ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine covering attacks on energy infrastructure, claiming both sides had agreed to halt the strikes.
“Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine. Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!” he wrote on Truth Social.
The announcement appeared to catch Kiev off guard, with Zelensky saying it “was news for me.” Moscow has not confirmed the agreement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that contacts were continuing but declined to provide details.
Moscow firmly denied any involvement, and previous British governments said no evidence was found
UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham claims that Russia “clearly” interfered in the 2016 Brexit referendum which led to Britain leaving the EU, without providing evidence to back up the rehashed allegations.
Speaking on ‘The Rest is Politics’ podcast on Sunday, the prime minister said he sought answers about Russia’s alleged involvement after taking office this summer.
“I asked the question coming to Downing Street: Well, was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia? I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was.”
Burnham did not identify who provided the assessment, what evidence supports it, or whether any alleged interference affected the result. Defending the timing of his unsubstantiated claim – ten years after Brexit – Burnham argued that voters need to understand that some political movements were “instigated via our enemies, namely Russia.”
Britain voted to leave the EU in the June 23, 2016 referendum, with 51.89% backing Leave against 48.11% for Remain, with 72.2% turnout. The vote was driven largely by demands to reclaim sovereignty, control immigration, cut EU regulations and budget contributions, and pursue independent trade deals, amid widespread dissatisfaction with the political establishment.
Allegations of Russian interference through media activity and bots allegedly boosting pro-Leave sentiment have surfaced before, but Burnham is the first sitting prime minister to publicly make the claim. Previous governments denied that Russia influenced the vote, citing “no evidence of successful interference” or any impact on the result.
Russia has dismissed the allegations as baseless speculation and part of a pattern of Western accusations. Moscow has not yet commented on Burnham’s claims.
Russian interference?
Western governments have repeatedly pointed the finger at Russia over elections and political developments, including recent contests in Germany, France, Moldova, and Georgia. On the podcast, Burnham recalled a conversation with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose CDU was defeated by the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) in three major state elections in recent weeks. According to Burnham, Merz also raised the issue of Russian involvement, citing the AfD’s alleged ties to Moscow.
Russia firmly rejects the allegations of political interference. Officials maintain that Russia respects the sovereignty of other states and does not interfere in their internal affairs, describing the accusations as part of domestic political struggles and anti-Russia campaigns.
Russia, meanwhile, has accused the West of meddling abroad. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this year that Western governments interfere through color revolutions, military force, and “electoral neocolonialism” – using politically biased election monitoring, media campaigns, and external pressure to influence other countries’ political processes and challenge unfavorable results.
Russia has accused Britain of interference in the Ukraine conflict, citing extensive weapons deliveries, military training, and intelligence support for Kiev, as well as former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s alleged role in derailing the 2022 peace talks. Moscow argues that London’s actions make it a de facto party to the conflict and obstruct peace efforts. Lavrov said in August that British involvement in missile strikes on Russia gave the country grounds to regard the UK as a party to the conflict, “with all ensuing consequences.”
Burnham’s decision to revisit alleged ‘Russian interference’ comes as his government considers closer ties with Brussels. At the Labour Party’s annual conference last month, he argued that Brexit has done “more harm than good,” and suggested that rejoining the EU could feature in the party’s next election manifesto, opening the door to reversing the vote.
Economic assessments have generally found that Brexit has hurt Britain’s economy, which has experienced weak growth since leaving the EU. Recent estimates suggest that GDP is 6% to 8% lower than it would have been had the country remained.
A YouGov poll last month suggests that 59% of Britons support rejoining the EU, with 32% opposed. However, support for closer ties without rejoining the EU, single market, or customs union is higher, at 73%.
Critics of reversing Brexit, including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, argue that rejoining the EU would force Britain to surrender control over immigration, regulation, and trade policy while taking on new financial obligations.
Commenting on Burnham’s allegations of Russia meddling in an interview with The Guardian on Monday, Farage called the prime minister “a liar,” dismissing the claims as part of a longstanding “Russia hoax.”
“The prime minister is a liar. Yes, a liar... There was no Russian interference. And the Russia hoax has run all the way through this,” he said, citing previous denials under Boris Johnson and Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty’s assertion that any attempted meddling failed.
South Korea is preparing for an Arctic era in maritime trade, President Lee Jae-myung has said
A South Korean container ship has completed a trial round trip to Europe via Russia’s Northern Sea Route, demonstrating the potential of the Arctic passage as a commercial shipping corridor.
Seoul considers maritime cooperation with Russia important to its trade strategy, despite joining some Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict. Chinese shipping companies have also been exploring the strategic Arctic route.
The PanStar Acro returned to Busan on Sunday, 50 days after departing for Europe along Russia’s northern coast. The ship reached Felixstowe, Britain, on September 12 and Rotterdam, Netherlands, the following day. It also called at Gdansk, Poland, before returning to South Korea.
President Lee Jae-myung congratulated the crew on their safe return and thanked them for their work. The voyage, which cut travel time by approximately ten days in each direction compared with the traditional route through the Suez Canal, provided valuable navigation experience and data as South Korea prepares for an “Arctic route era,” Lee wrote on X.
Asian interest in the Northern Sea Route has grown amid turmoil in the Middle East. However, the Russian Arctic passage presents challenges, including a limited navigation season and the potential need for icebreaker escorts.
Earlier this month, Russian nuclear corporation Rosatom, which operates the Northern Sea Route through its subsidiary and maintains a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers, welcomed the PanStar Acro’s eastbound passage. The ship crossed the Arctic section in just 5.85 days, compared with 6.4 days on its westbound journey.
Timely Russian navigational guidance and information about weather and ice conditions “enabled route optimization and adherence to the planned schedule,” Rosatom said.
Russia used the Northern Sea Route for decades to supply its own hard-to-reach settlements in the north. With international traffic expected to rise due to climate change, Moscow is rapidly developing infrastructure required to support it.
According to Yonhap, the operator of the 2,758-TEU vessel had hoped to complete the journey faster but nevertheless considered the trial successful. The delay was relatively minor, and the ship encountered no major incidents.
South Korean vessels previously conducted trial voyages through the Northern Sea Route in 2013 and 2016, but the PanStar Acro became the first to complete a round trip to Europe. Seoul expects regular services along the Russian route to begin in 2030, with larger more profitable vessels using the passage by 2035 and Busan serving as a gateway port.
South Korea has joined some US-backed sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict but has not directly sanctioned Rosatom. Seoul has also declined to supply weapons to Ukraine and recently experienced a diplomatic dispute with Kiev after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky disclosed an arrangement concerning the transfer to South Korea of two North Korean prisoners of war captured in Russia.
Meanwhile, Chinese carrier Sea Legend Shipping announced earlier this year the launch of regular seasonal deliveries from Ningbo-Zhoushan to European ports, including Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Gdansk, and Hamburg. The company said its “Arctic Express” service is focusing on time-sensitive cargo.
Washington’s diesel waiver sidelines Ukraine. Will Trump now curb intelligence assistance to pressure Kiev?
The latest turn in Russia-US relations has shocked Kiev, outraged the EU, provoked discontent among a considerable number of politicians in the US, and left many observers around the world perplexed.
The Trump administration’s sudden decision to suspend sanctions on Russian diesel supplies appears to contradict its recent actions, including the adoption of tough new sanctions legislation intended to increase pressure on Moscow, and while some attribute the reversal to US President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, others see the beginnings of a new policy, or evidence of a fundamental change in the administration’s approach to Ukraine.
To understand what’s happening, however, we must look beyond the peculiarities of the US president’s public behavior. Trump’s extravagance, which frequently borders on the absurd, often conceals a relatively clear set of objectives, but whether those objectives are sensible is another question.
The most likely explanation for his latest reversal lies in domestic American politics, as the congressional midterm elections are less than a month away, and the Republican Party faces difficult prospects. Trump maintains an air of indifference, but losing control of both houses of Congress would condemn him to two years of political confrontation and considerable frustration.
He probably understands that there’s little prospect of fundamentally improving the economic situation, particularly consumer prices, before voters go to the polls, so for now, the emphasis is on psychological impact.
Russia isn’t the first country Washington has approached about increasing fuel supplies to international markets, and the more agreements Trump can announce, the more opportunities he has to proclaim that the White House is working tirelessly to protect ordinary Americans from rising prices.
The expectation, presumably, is that voters will forget how much of the present difficulty stems from Trump’s own actions in the Persian Gulf.
We shall soon discover whether this approach works, but there’s nothing particularly irrational about it, and Trump is pursuing a deliberate political objective. The fact that his latest decision contradicts previous statements doesn’t trouble him because he’s long operated on the assumption that words have value at the moment they’re spoken, but impose few obligations thereafter.
What does this mean for Russia, beyond the welcome prospect of additional budget revenues?
Colleagues from the Vatfor project have identified an important development, in that for the first time since the beginning of the conflict, the US president has made a significant decision regarding Russia without making Ukraine the determining consideration.
Until now, the Ukrainian question has been inseparable from virtually every aspect of Washington’s policy towards Moscow, but this time, not only has it been set aside, the decision directly contradicts Kiev’s interests at a particularly difficult moment.
Hence the indignation of the Ukrainian leadership, as from its perspective, the Americans have behaved unfairly.
There are probably several reasons for this change, but the principal one appears to be Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s unwillingness to accommodate Washington’s demands that Ukraine stop attacking Russian energy infrastructure.
The strikes have become one of Kiev’s principal instruments of warfare, and American requests to curtail them have largely gone unanswered.
Trump, meanwhile, has become fixated on Russian oil supplies as a means of addressing rising fuel prices, and their importance shouldn’t be exaggerated, even if additional Russian supplies alone are unlikely to transform the global market. Nevertheless, Trump has evidently decided that Zelensky bears responsibility for aggravating the situation.
Once the US president reaches this conclusion, persuading him otherwise becomes extremely difficult. Therefore, for the moment, Kiev’s objections have simply been disregarded.
The more consequential question concerns American intelligence assistance, because to stop, or at least substantially reduce, Ukrainian attacks on Russian targets, Washington would have to restrict the intelligence it provides to Kiev, and much of this information amounts, in practical terms, to targeting assistance.
Trump already demonstrated willingness to use this instrument when around a year and a half ago, he temporarily suspended intelligence cooperation for several days to put pressure on the Ukrainian leadership.
A longer interruption would be a different matter and it would represent a genuine change in Washington’s approach to the conflict, effectively distancing the US from its Ukrainian partner, but whether Trump is prepared to take this step is uncertain.
There is, after all, an extensive informal coalition interested in maintaining the present course, and it includes the US defense industry, increasingly influential technology companies, European governments, and their political allies in Washington.
Trump encountered these forces during his previous attempt to advance his preferred settlement following the Anchorage summit, and that initiative ultimately produced little, so it remains to be seen whether the present effort will fare any better.
If Washington proves unwilling to exert sustained pressure on Kiev, the latest initiative could gradually lose momentum, and this is especially likely after the congressional elections, when the immediate political value of announcing presidential achievements will diminish.
The decisive question, therefore, is whether the US leadership can compel its partners to move in the direction it considers necessary, and if it can, an opportunity for further negotiations on a settlement could emerge.
There’s also a second conclusion which is particularly important for Russia, because Washington’s latest actions offer a glimpse of how Russia-US relations could develop after the military phase of the conflict ends.
The enormous collection of sanctions imposed on Russia is unlikely to disappear, and removing them would be exceptionally difficult, both procedurally and politically, given too many restrictions have become embedded in law and institutional practice.
Instead, the sanctions will probably remain formally in place, while decisions about their enforcement are taken according to circumstances; thus, when a particular restriction conflicts with US interests, Washington could suspend its application, but when the circumstances change, it can be restored.
In other words, sanctions will become instruments to be activated or deactivated according to immediate political and economic requirements, rather than permanent expressions of an immutable policy, and this is an important distinction between the American and European approaches.
The Americans generally display a greater degree of pragmatism as they are perfectly capable of proclaiming principles with great conviction, abandoning them when circumstances demand it, and returning to the same principles when doing so becomes convenient. European governments, by contrast, have increasingly bound themselves to political commitments from which retreat is both institutionally complicated and publicly embarrassing.
For Moscow, understanding this difference will be essential when constructing its future relationship with Washington now that the confrontation over Ukraine has reached a stage at which its consequences extend far beyond the immediate military and territorial questions.
Whatever the eventual outcome, it will help determine the structure of future political relations between Russia and the various components of the Western world, and while that structure is already beginning to emerge, its geometry remains unsettled, and the lines are still moving.
The Microsoft co-founder has warned that leaving tech giants to police themselves could expose the world to unprecedented cyber threats
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has challenged US President Donald Trump’s approach to AI, warning that the government cannot leave the world’s “most dangerous technology” entirely in the hands of the companies that develop it.
Trump signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence last month alongside representatives of Google, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, Anthropic, and Nvidia, establishing voluntary safety commitments and internal oversight mechanisms.
Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Gates questioned whether Trump’s agreement with America’s biggest tech companies goes far enough to prevent potentially catastrophic abuses.
“The idea that for the most dangerous technology humans ever invented, that that’s the final word, that just the companies themselves are the only check that society has,” Gates said, warning that “it’s clear we’re not doing enough.”
He argued that government agencies must take a more active role, comparing AI to aviation and medicine, where the authorities enforce safety standards. “The government so far is pretty much a bystander to something that’s going on in private companies.”
Gates identified cyberattacks as the most immediate danger and warned that criminals could exploit AI models stripped of safeguards against hacking and bioterrorism. “When you have bad people, no safeguards, and then the latest models, that’s where over the next year... we are going to have a lot of negative surprises,” he said.
His warnings follow a series of incidents involving AI agents acting beyond their intended instructions. Last week, Anthropic disclosed that its Claude models had taken unauthorized actions on government websites, including submitting a fabricated homicide tip to a Philadelphia police website during testing in July. Other reported incidents have involved AI agents accessing restricted information, exploiting vulnerabilities, and attempting to breach government websites.
Trump has resisted calls to slow AI development, arguing that restrictions could allow China to overtake the US in the technological race, and dismissing fears of rogue AI as a “hoax.” Gates said he hopes to discuss the dangers directly with Trump and his senior advisers.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has argued that the world must accept some “bad things,” including hacks and scams, in exchange for the benefits of AI and widespread access to the technology. In an interview published last week, he insisted that the “good stuff” would outweigh the harm by “orders of magnitude.”
Confronted with Altman’s remarks, Gates acknowledged that eliminating every risk is impossible, comparing AI to the automobile industry, where accidents persist despite decades of safety improvements.
“Those were a big deal, but nothing compared to this,” Gates said, referring to the personal computer and the internet. “This changes the world more than all previous technologies.”
The US has reportedly threatened to cut off arms sales and intelligence sharing unless Ukraine stops attacking Russian oil refineries
US President Donald Trump is furious with Vladimir Zelensky over Kiev’s continued attacks on Russian oil refineries, with Washington reportedly threatening to cut off weapons supplies and intelligence sharing unless Ukraine stops the strikes, according to Axios and the Financial Times.
The confrontation comes after Trump struck a diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ease a global fuel shortage that has sent American energy prices soaring.
Kiev has continued to target Russian refining facilities despite repeated warnings, with Trump accusing Zelensky of deliberately hurting American consumers and farmers while refusing opportunities to end the conflict.
“Trump is really mad. He feels Zelensky is taking the US for granted,” a White House official told Axios on Sunday. The source argued that Kiev’s attacks on Russian refineries are doing more damage to its relationship with Washington than to Russia.
US officials contacted Kiev and several European capitals over the weekend, threatening to suspend intelligence sharing and the NATO-backed Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism, through which European countries purchase American weapons for Ukraine, according to the Financial Times, which cited officials familiar with the discussions.
Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner also reportedly warned Ukrainian representatives during talks in Miami on Friday that Washington could stop sharing intelligence if Kiev continues to ignore the president’s demands, according to a Ukrainian official cited by Axios.
A US official, however, denied making direct threats, saying the negotiators instead reminded Kiev of Washington’s extensive military and intelligence support and urged it to stop taking actions that hurt American consumers.
The confrontation has threatened to derail broader negotiations aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict. Witkoff and Kushner have reportedly put their planned trip to Moscow on hold until Kiev and its leading European backers clarify whether they are prepared to support a unified peace proposal.
Trump reached a diesel deal with Putin on Friday after Zelensky ignored at least half a dozen requests to stop striking Russian refineries, according to earlier Axios reporting. The US Treasury subsequently eased sanctions on Russian diesel exports until April 2027, while Moscow pledged substantial fuel deliveries to help alleviate global shortages.
Zelensky called the move a “weak decision,” arguing that the agreement will provide Russia with additional revenue. Trump hit back, accusing the Ukrainian leader of creating problems for the world and suggesting that it is time for Ukraine to elect a new leader capable of reaching a deal.
On Sunday, Trump unexpectedly announced that Moscow and Kiev agreed to an immediate ceasefire covering attacks on energy infrastructure. “Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine. Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!” he wrote on Truth Social.
The announcement caught Kiev by surprise, with Zelensky saying it “was news for me.” Moscow has also yet to confirm the agreement.
A White House official described the proposed agreement as a “refinery for refinery” arrangement, under which both sides would stop attacking oil refineries, but not necessarily other energy infrastructure, according to Axios. Kiev has said the deal would disproportionately benefit Russia, since Ukraine has only one largely nonfunctional refinery and fully relies on imported fuel.
Demonstrators in Jaroslaw called for tighter border controls following a deadly stabbing at a local abbey
Hundreds of protesters have gathered in the Polish city of Jaroslaw, demanding tighter immigration controls and denouncing Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera following the fatal stabbing of a local priest by a Ukrainian national.
Last month, a 31-year-old Ukrainian citizen stabbed five people at the city’s Benedictine abbey, killing Father Stanislaw Zbojnowicz and wounding four others. Investigators said the suspect entered Poland from Germany and was apparently heading toward Ukraine. He admitted to the charges on October 7 but declined to explain his actions, prosecutors said.
The demonstration took place in the city’s market square on Saturday, with participants waving Polish flags, setting off flares, and chanting slogans including “Poland for Poles” and “Bandera, get out!”
“We want a safe Poland, and this is not racism. This is our concern for our loved ones, our families, and ourselves,” Marcin Kowalski, a local activist with the nationalist Ruch Narodowy (National Movement), told the crowd, insisting that demands for an immigration crackdown are “about safety.”
Manifestacja antyimigracyjna w Jarosławiu https://t.co/zPXaln8vBc
— Ruch Narodowy Powiat jarosławski (@awski35196) October 11, 2026
A banner featuring a crossed-out Ukrainian trident declared: “No more hospitality, you ungrateful bastards!” Some demonstrators wore clothing condemning the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).
“Zero tolerance for Banderism,” Kowalski continued. “We say it loud and clear: We do not want Bandera here in Poland,” he said as protesters chanted, “Bandera, get out! Go beyond the Don.”
Bandera led a radical faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. The faction and its armed wing, the UPA, were responsible for massacring tens of thousands of ethnic Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, territories that belonged to prewar Poland and are now largely in western Ukraine.
The massacres remain a major source of tension between Warsaw and Kiev. Poland recognizes the killings as genocide and estimates that Ukrainian nationalists murdered around 100,000 Poles, while Ukraine continues to honor OUN and UPA figures as national heroes.
The dispute intensified earlier this year after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky took part in the reburial of OUN leader Andrey Melnik and later approved the honorary title ‘Heroes of the UPA’ for a Ukrainian military unit. The move sparked outrage in Poland, prompting President Karol Nawrocki to strip Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, the country’s highest state honor.
Saturday’s rally followed a March of Silence held in memory of the slain priest. Organizers also collected signatures demanding an end to Jaroslaw’s partnership with the Ukrainian city of Skole.
The killing has also fueled wider calls for tougher border controls, while a July survey found that 52% of Poles oppose accepting Ukrainian refugees.
AfD and BSW are pushing for an end to sanctions against Moscow as soaring fuel prices squeeze German consumers
Two German opposition parties have called for restoring economic ties with Russia following US President Donald Trump’s example in striking a diesel deal with Moscow, challenging Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s sanctions policy as soaring fuel prices put further pressure on Europe’s largest economy.
The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which together command a majority in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt’s parliament, are preparing a joint resolution demanding an end to the sanctions on Russia and financial support for Kiev amid growing frustration over Berlin’s foreign policy and its economic consequences.
“Germany also needs a diesel deal with Russia,” Claudia Wittig, the deputy leader of the BSW parliamentary group, said, according to German media.
Wittig described fuel prices at German filling stations as “a scandal,” arguing that the sanctions have “failed across the board” and are primarily hurting Germany itself. She insisted that Berlin should go further than a one-off fuel agreement and resume regular imports of Russian oil and gas to help rescue German industry.
“We need policies that think more about Köthen than Kiev,” Wittig said earlier, referring to a German town in Saxony-Anhalt. “We can no longer afford this war.”
AfD co-leader Alice Weidel also hailed Trump’s deal with Moscow, accusing Merz of undermining Germany’s economy with sanctions and expensive liquefied natural gas imports.
“That’s how it’s done!” she wrote on X on Saturday. “While Merz ruins Germany with sanctions and expensive LNG, Trump practices realpolitik. German interests instead of escalation!”
The initiative comes after Trump reached a surprise agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday to ease the global diesel shortage. Washington subsequently suspended sanctions on Russian diesel exports, allowing the country to release hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel to the international markets.
Trump has repeatedly blamed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for exacerbating the global energy crisis by targeting Russian oil refineries despite his warnings. On Saturday, he suggested that Ukrainians should replace their leader, accusing Zelensky of rejecting numerous opportunities to settle the conflict.
The joint resolution is scheduled for a vote in the Saxony-Anhalt parliament in Magdeburg on October 14. AfD and BSW hold a combined majority following September’s regional elections, although the state legislature has no authority to lift federal or EU sanctions on Russia. The initiative also marks a further breach of Germany’s longstanding political ‘firewall’ against the AfD, which mainstream parties have sought to exclude from power despite its growing support.
Merz’s government has rejected any prospects of easing its anti-Russia stance and vowed to pursue even more sanctions. Government spokesman Stefan Kornelius insisted on Saturday that Berlin’s support for Kiev is “unwavering.” Green Party co-leader Franziska Brantner blasted Trump’s agreement with Putin, calling it the height of “unscrupulousness.”
The chancellor, whose popularity has sunk so low that he faces calls to resign from within his own party, has faced mounting criticism over the impact of his policies. Wagenknecht previously accused him of turning German citizens into “cash cows for Ukraine.” Moscow has accused Merz of acting more like a “Ukrainian chancellor” than a German leader.
An unidentified projectile sparked a fire at Terminal 4, killing one person and injuring 11 others, the Saudi authorities say
King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh has come under another deadly attack just one day after a Houthi strike killed 12 people and injured 309 at the facility. The latest attack on Sunday killed a Pakistani national and injured 11 others, according to Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA).
An unidentified projectile struck Terminal 4 of the airport, sparking a fire, Major General Turki Al-Maliki, the spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, told reporters on Sunday.
“The Coalition also intercepted and destroyed a cruise missile in the vicinity of the airport,” he added.
The GACA said the injured were taken to the hospital for treatment, and the extent of the damage to the airport is still being assessed. The latest casualties bring the combined toll from the two attacks to 13 dead and 320 injured.
The airport has remained closed since Saturday’s deadly attack, which killed four Saudi citizens and eight foreign nationals, including two Bangladeshis and one each from the US, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Sudan. Some of the injured were reported to be in critical condition.
العربية تعرض لقطات من لحظات الاعتداء على مطار الرياض يوم أمس https://t.co/mQYJiki0m1
Yemen’s Houthi movement, also known as Ansar Allah, claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attack on Riyadh airport, as well as strikes that it said it carried out on an airport in Dammam in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, and two facilities of Saudi oil giant Aramco.
The Saudi authorities did not immediately confirm the claimed strikes on the oil facilities. The Houthis did not claim responsibility for Sunday’s strike on Riyadh airport, but issued new warnings to airlines and travelers against using Saudi airports. The group warned that the situation will only get worse unless Riyadh ends its interference in Yemen.
The developments come amid a sharp escalation in fighting between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition, which has backed Yemen’s internationally recognized government against the group since intervening in the country’s civil war in 2015.
Large-scale hostilities largely subsided following a UN-brokered truce in 2022, but fighting flared up again this summer after Saudi-backed Yemeni forces bombed an airport in the Houthi-controlled capital, Sanaa, reportedly to prevent a delegation returning from Iran from landing.
In recent weeks, the Iranian-backed Houthi movement has made major territorial gains in southwestern Yemen, expanding control along the Red Sea coast and around the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The narrow waterway, which links the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden, is one of the world’s most important shipping routes. The Houthis have also expanded their presence on islands in the Red Sea.
Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces have since launched a counteroffensive aimed at reversing the Houthi advances. Earlier this week, they reportedly recaptured the market and security headquarters in Al-Masrakh district of Taiz province, according to local media.
Saudi Arabia has intensified its bombing campaign in support of the government offensive. The Houthis claimed that Saudi warplanes carried out 124 airstrikes over a 24-hour period, targeting Sanaa and the group’s northern stronghold of Saada.
Login
