Russia’s top diplomat says his French colleagues “occasionally” express desire to resolve strained relations
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that many French officials silently agree with millions of their citizens who have no desire to “sacrifice friendship” with Moscow for the dubious benefits of supporting the “Nazi regime” in Kiev.
Lavrov said on Friday that Moscow has been receiving signals, conveyed through informal channels, communicating Paris’s desire to repair relations between the two countries.
“Our French colleagues send us occasional signals that they really want to deal with the issues at hand, but they do this in a whisper,” Lavrov stated during a ceremony in Moscow, where he awarded the Order of Friendship to French-Russian businessman Emmanuel Quidet.
While relations between Russia and France have deteriorated over the Ukraine conflict, the “strength of the bond between us is evidenced by the fact that a number of French companies continued to operate in Russia despite threats and difficulties,” Lavrov said, praising Quidet for his work.
“We are deeply convinced that millions of people in France fully realize what is happening, and they have no desire to sacrifice friendship with Russia for the dubious benefits of supporting the Nazi regime,” the top diplomat added.
Lavrov criticized what he described as the “false, crude, and primitive interpretations” of the Ukraine conflict being planted in French public opinion, and accused Paris of playing a leading role in directing Ukraine toward confrontation with Russia.
Despite the political strains, Lavrov emphasized that a number of French companies have continued operating in Russia. “I am confident that they made the right choice,” he said, thanking Quidet – who holds an honorary presidency over a non-profit association of some 400 international companies – for his contribution to strengthening Franco-Russian relations.
France has become one of Kiev’s key backers during the conflict, as well as one of the primary proponents of the idea to deploy a military force into Ukraine, repeatedly floated by French President Emmanuel Macron.
France and the UK have actively promoted the idea within the so-called “coalition of the willing,” a group of around 30 of Kiev’s supporters. In recent days, however, the key advocates of a potential deployment have reportedly shown a weakening desire to send troops, as the group has failed to agree on an actual plan for deployment or the scope of the mission. Moscow has repeatedly warned strongly against the deployment of any NATO troops into Ukraine under any pretext.
Virginia Giuffre’s accusation of sexual abuse by the senior British royal was settled out of court in 2022
Virginia Giuffre, a prominent survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring and a leading advocate for victims of sexual abuse, has died by suicide at the age of 41, her family said in a statement to NBC News on Friday.
Giuffre passed away at her farm in Neergabby, Western Australia, where she had lived with her husband and three children since 2019.
“It is with utterly broken hearts that we announce that Virginia passed away last night at her farm in Western Australia. She lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking,” her family told NBC News.
They described her as “a fierce warrior in the fight against sexual abuse and sex trafficking” and noted that “the toll of abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight.”
Giuffre was instrumental in bringing global attention to Epstein’s abuse network. She provided crucial information to law enforcement that contributed to the conviction of Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
She also filed a high-profile civil lawsuit against Britain’s Prince Andrew, alleging he sexually abused her when she was 17. The case was settled out of court in 2022, with Prince Andrew denying the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein died in a New York jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death was officially ruled a suicide, though it has remained the subject of intense public scrutiny and widespread speculation given the high-profile figures linked to his case.
Court documents unsealed last year also revealed a possible link between Giuffre and Ruslana Korshunova, a Kazakh-Russian model who jumped to her death from her Manhattan apartment in 2008. Korshunova had reportedly flown on Epstein’s private jet to his private island, Little St. James, two years before her death. Following Korshunova’s death, Giuffre received an email from her attorney inquiring whether she knew the young model.
In March, Giuffre revealed on Instagram that she had been involved in a car accident with a school bus and was suffering from renal failure. She stated that doctors had given her “four days to live” and shared a photo of herself with visible bruises. Her family later clarified that she had been hospitalized and was receiving medical care.
Her brother, Danny Wilson, told NBC News that she had been in “real physical pain” and “suffered from renal failure,” but that “the mental pain was worse.”
Giuffre’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, described her as “a dear friend and an incredible champion for other victims,” while her representative, Dini von Mueffling, said, “Virginia was one of the most extraordinary human beings I have ever had the honor to know.”
Officials urged visitors to be respectful as the late pontiff lied in state at St. Peter’s Basilica
Vatican officials urged mourners to refrain from taking photographs with the late Pope Francis as he lied in state at St. Peter’s Basilica, stressing the need for solemnity and respect during the period of mourning.
The appeal came after images and videos surfaced online showing visitors posing near the casket. Vatican staff instructed the faithful to refrain from using mobile phones and to maintain an atmosphere of prayer and reflection.
“Visitors are invited not to take photos,” a Vatican spokesperson told The Times, underscoring the importance of preserving the dignity of the occasion.
Since the public viewing began on Wednesday, around 250,000 mourners filed past the late pope’s casket, according to Vatican News. To accommodate the vast crowds, St. Peter’s Basilica remained open overnight.
On Friday evening, the Pope’s coffin was sealed during a private ceremony led by Cardinal-Camerlengo Kevin Farrell. Following a centuries-old tradition, a white silk cloth was placed over Pope Francis’ face, and a bag containing coins and medals minted during his pontificate was placed inside the coffin. His casket was sealed, bearing a cross, his coat of arms, and official Vatican seals, in preparation for the funeral scheduled for Saturday morning.
The funeral will be attended by thousands of people, including world leaders and dignitaries, paying tribute to the 266th Pope, whose memory, the Vatican said, “remains in the heart of the Church and of all humanity.”
Kiev expects sustained American aid despite growing tensions over Trump’s peace plan
Kiev expects Washington to provide long-term security assistance modeled on the US relationship with Israel, Vladimir Zelensky has said, after Ukraine’s European backers reportedly rejected several points of US President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan.
Washington presented its draft deal to end the hostilities between Kiev and Moscow during talks in Paris last week. At a follow-up meeting in London on Wednesday – which was downgraded at the last minute after Zelensky publicly rejected key US suggestions – Ukrainian officials and their NATO European counterparts reportedly put forward a counterproposal.
Speaking to journalists on Friday, Zelensky insisted that any future peace deal with Moscow must be backed by sustained US military, financial, and political support.
“Discussions in London have focused on security guarantees from the United States. We hope them to be at least as robust as those provided to Israel. Additionally, we anticipate support from our European partners and are actively developing the infrastructure necessary for these guarantees,” Zelensky said.
Deliberations about an Israeli model of support for Ukraine first emerged during the presidency of Joe Biden, when Western officials began to acknowledge that Kiev was unlikely to be granted NATO membership. In lieu of collective security guarantees, they sought ways to at least ensure a long-term, uninterrupted flow of Western arms.
Zelensky’s comments come amid increasing friction with Washington, as Trump pushes Kiev to accept what media outlets have described as his “final offer” to end the conflict. Reports indicate that Washington’s framework includes freezing the conflict along the current front lines and recognizing Crimea as Russian territory – a condition Zelensky has firmly rejected.
Trump stated that “Crimea will stay with Russia” in an interview with Time Magazine on Friday. He argued that Kiev would never have enough weapons or manpower to retake the peninsula, which “was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired.” Crimea officially joined Russia in 2014 after a referendum held following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.
“Our position is unchanged,” Zelensky reiterated on Friday, despite acknowledging Kiev’s dependence on continued American support.
Trump and other senior US officials have warned that if progress is not made soon, Washington may reconsider its role as mediator and shift its focus to other global priorities. According to reports, Ukrainian officials are already bracing for the possibility of reduced American support should negotiations collapse.
Moscow has stated that it is open to negotiations and is grateful for Trump’s peace initiatives. However, the Russian leadership has stressed that it seeks a lasting solution to the conflict, saying a temporary halt in the hostilities would simply allow Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm its military. Any peace deal must acknowledge the territorial reality and address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Russia has insisted.
The US president has said Kiev and Moscow have agreed to “most” points of his peace proposal and are ready to “finish it off”
US President Donald Trump has claimed that “most of the major points” in an agreement to end the Ukraine conflict have been resolved, even as Vladimir Zelensky once again publicly rejected a reported key clause in the proposed US peace framework.
Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks with US special envoy Steve Witkoff on Friday, described by Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov as “constructive and very useful.” Trump also expressed satisfaction with the negotiations, saying it was a “good day in talks and meetings with Russia and Ukraine.”
“They are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social late Friday, adding that “SUCCESS seems to be in the future!”
The agreement proposed by Washington reportedly includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, a “freezing” of the conflict along the current front line, and acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia.
“Crimea will stay with Russia” under a final settlement of the Ukraine conflict, Trump said in a recent interview with Time Magazine.
However, in direct contradiction to Trump, Zelensky reiterated on Friday that Kiev will not even discuss formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.
“Our position is unchanged: only the Ukrainian people have the right to decide which territories are Ukrainian,” Zelensky told reporters in Kiev, arguing that “the constitution of Ukraine says that all the temporarily occupied territories... belong to Ukraine.”
Zelensky went on to claim that his “vision” of a resolution includes more “sanctions, economic and diplomatic pressure” on Moscow – even as Washington’s peace framework reportedly includes a phased removal of the sanctions.
Trump previously blamed Zelensky’s public statements for harming the negotiation process and warned that he risks losing the entire country if he continues to stall talks with Moscow.
The US-proposed deal would also reportedly prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, an ambition enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution. Kiev’s intention to join the US-led bloc likely “caused the war to start,” Trump said in his interview with Time.
The Kremlin has stated that it remains open to diplomacy and has expressed gratitude for Trump’s peace efforts. Ushakov confirmed that Friday’s talks touched on the possibility of resuming direct bilateral negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, but offered no details. No direct talks between the two sides have taken place since Ukraine pulled out of the Istanbul negotiations in 2022.
According to Putin, Zelensky – who has banned himself from engaging in talks with Moscow – is actively sabotaging any peace process, as it would require the lifting of martial law, which currently allows him to remain in power. Moscow maintains that without martial law, Zelensky would be compelled under the Ukrainian constitution to either hold elections or transfer presidential authority to the speaker of the parliament.
Steve Witkoff has met the Russian president in the latest round of diplomacy
Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks with US special envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday.
Witkoff’s visit was part of a broader diplomacy push by the administration of US President Donald Trump to advance bilateral efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict. The trip was Witkoff’s fourth diplomatic visit to Russia, which included at least three meetings with Putin, since the resumption of US-Russia talks.
The meeting took place behind closed doors, just like the previous visits by the US envoy, this time at the Kremlin.
Putin’s foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov and presidential investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev also took part in the meeting.
London and Paris had previously lead an effort to send a European contingent if a ceasefire is reached
The UK has ditched plans to deploy a military contingent to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, The Times has reported, citing anonymous sources.
The defense chiefs from a number of European NATO states had in recent weeks been discussing sending military personnel to Ukraine, under a so-called “coalition of the willing.” Russia has strongly objected to the prospect of Western troops appearing in the neighboring country under any pretext.
In an article on Thursday, The Times quoted an unnamed source as saying that the “risks are too high and the forces inadequate for” a deployment that had been previously under consideration. According to the publication, “it was France who wanted a more muscular approach.”
Instead of coalition forces guarding key Ukrainian cities, ports, and nuclear power plants, the grouping now envisages more emphasis on Western military instructors training Ukrainian troops in the west of the country, who would “‘reassure’ by being there but aren’t a deterrence or protection force,” The Times reported, citing an anonymous source.
The softened vision for a Western military presence in Ukraine does, however, reportedly include the coalition’s aircraft patrolling Ukraine’s airspace and Türkiye providing maritime cover.
Additionally, Paris and London want the flow of Western weaponry to Ukraine to continue uninterrupted, according to The Times.
The media outlet quoted an unnamed diplomatic source as saying that the coalition “will move our position but we want Moscow to break their red lines.”
On Friday, Reuters published what it described as a set of US proposals for ending the Ukraine conflict that was presumably presented to European officials by US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff during talks in Paris last Thursday. It states among other points that “guarantor states [ensuring Ukraine’s security] will be an ad hoc grouping of European states plus willing non-European states.”
A presumed counter-proposal by a number of European nations and Ukraine, which was also published by Reuters, demands that there be “no restrictions on the presence, weapons and operations of friendly foreign forces on the territory of Ukraine.”
In an interview with TASS published on Thursday, Sergey Shoigu, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council, warned that the presence of Western troops in Ukraine could result in a direct confrontation between Moscow and NATO, potentially escalating into a third world war. The official, who previously served as Russia’s defense minister, emphasized that Moscow could use nuclear weapons “in the event of aggression,” conventional or otherwise.
Steve Witkoff’s Moscow visit seems to show that a detente the two nations is possible even if Zelensky is not part of the equation
Russian President Vladimir Putin has met again with Steve Witkoff, special envoy of US President Donald Trump. From the little the cameras showed us of the meeting it appears that the atmosphere was unusually friendly. The discussion was also long, lasting for about three hours.
Yet, at this point, we know little about its content or, more importantly, what progress has been made or not. We do know, from Russia’s Yuri Ushakov, special aide to Putin, that the meeting was, in his words, “constructive” and “useful.” In particular, it has produced closer proximity between the Russian and US positions, not only on Ukraine but also on other issues that have – mostly – not been further specified. With the important exception of the possibility of facilitating direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian representatives.
Clearly, it is too early to draw strong conclusions about the meeting and its results. One thing that seems certain is that it was not a failure. Even if Ushakov’s language was restrained, it did signal that much. Beyond that, however, we can only speculate: One thing we know from the meeting’s context is that Trump has, once again, publicly displayed great dissatisfaction and impatience with Kiev and personally with Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky. This time, using his own social media site Truth Social, Trump focused on Zelensky’s refusal to accept the loss of Crimea. More broadly, he reminded Zelensky that he has little leverage (“no cards”) and that his stalling delays ending the war.
This intervention is in line with what Trump’s critics furiously decry as a pattern of being soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine. In principle, while exaggerating a little, the critics have a point. Trump has effectively reversed the former US approach, which consisted of pampering Ukraine and always blaming Russia. But what Trump’s critics here fail to realize is that, on this issue, he is right. He cannot quite say it, but Russia is winning the war against both Ukraine and, in effect, the West. In this situation, a US president has two options: escalate further, most likely to, at least, a very large regional war in Europe and parts of Asia or finally speak to Russia in terms that Moscow can find acceptable. That is precisely what Trump has decided to do, at least for now. And anyone who wishes to avoid escalation has to agree with him, if not in detail, then fundamentally.
The latest round of talks between the Russian leadership and Witkoff confirm that Washington is staying the course outlined above. More broadly again, it also means that the US is not abandoning the style of its latest peace proposal for the Ukraine War. The latter is reported to offer a freezing of current lines on the ground, the long overdue to Ukraine’s NATO perspective (which, if it had come in late 2021 could have prevented the war’s large-scale escalation), sanctions lifting, as well as recognizing Crimea as Russian.
These terms do not, actually, coincide with all of Russia’s demands. But they try to meet Russian concerns as never before. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed out, Trump is unique among Western leaders in acknowledging the root causes of the war. In that sense, the US peace proposals show not only that Washington is now realistic about the situation on the ground (heavily in Russia’s favor), but also that Trump’s administration is principally ready to shape its concrete policy according to the insight referred to by Lavrov.
That leaves, as far as the Ukraine War is concerned, two key questions: Will Trump follow through by withholding further military deliveries and crucial intelligence support to Kiev, and if so, when? Second, what are the NATO-EU Europeans going to do – or not do? While they still seem to be sticking to their rhetoric of blocking a path to peace, there are also signs that their misguided and harmful (for Ukraine most of all) resolve is crumbling: Britain is preparing the ground for explicitly giving up on silly schemes of sending troops to Ukraine, Polish President Andrzej Duda has recognized the fact that Ukraine has to make concessions to Russia, former NATO general secretary and uber-hawk Jens Stoltenberg has said the same, and current NATO figurehead Mark Rutte is demonstratively praising Trump for “breaking the deadlock.”
European hardliners are by no means ready to give up yet. Both Poland’s Radek “Thank you, USA!” Sikorski and France’s Emmanuel “I love my scent” Macron have produced hysterics of frustrated denial. Whichever way NATO-EU Europe ends up going, it is certain already that it is fracturing.
The above is the immediate backdrop of the latest meeting between Putin and Witkoff. The one thing we can take away from that meeting even now is that none of it has damaged the ongoing search for a fundamental normalization of the relationship between Moscow and Washington, which is good news for the world, whether European bellicists like it or not.
But it is more difficult not only to say anything about details, but also about one key question: Will this détente between Russia and the US proceed by including a settlement for Ukraine or will the two tracks diverge? It is possible for Washington and Moscow to keep working on normalization between them, while dropping the issue of Ukraine. That is the real meaning of Trump’s reminder to Zelensky that the US can recognize Crimea as Russian whatever Kiev chooses to do. Yet, of course, if Washington would really choose to be “done” with Ukraine, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio has put it, Russia would not. Kiev should be very careful what it wishes for.
The Kiev regime continues to engage in terrorist activities, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated
The killing of a senior Russian general in a car bomb has again demonstrated the true nature of the Kiev regime, which has long engaged in “terrorist activities” in Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Lt. Gen. Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy operations chief of the Russian General Staff, was killed by a car bomb outside his residence in the suburban Moscow town of Balashikha early on Friday. Commenting on the incident, Peskov called upon the public to “stay alert,” suggesting Ukraine was likely behind the assassination.
“The Kiev regime once again shows its essence,” Peskov told journalist Pavel Zarubin, adding that it “continues to engage in terrorist activities” on Russian soil. The incident serves as a reminder that “despite the peace talks, we must stay alert,” he added, speaking on the sidelines of a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin.
Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova offered a similar comment, stating should Ukrainian involvement in the assassination be confirmed, it would demonstrate the “barbarian and treacherous nature of the Kiev regime.” Ukraine is betting on escalating the conflict and “irresponsibly ignoring constructive proposals” to settle it through diplomacy, she noted.
“There is a reason to believe that the Ukrainian special services were involved in the murder, especially given that Moskalik was known to them from the time of his work in the Minsk Contact Group and the ‘Normandy [four] format’ for the settlement of the conflict in the southeast of Ukraine,” Zakharova added.
Last December, a bombing attack in Moscow killed Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, who served as the commander of the Russian Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces. Investigators blamed the incident on Ukrainian intelligence.
The explosive device used to kill Kirillov was reportedly concealed inside an electric scooter placed by the entrance of a residential building where the general had lived and monitored through a camera set up in a car parked outside. The bomb was detonated remotely by the perpetrators when the general and his aide were coming out of the building, killing both men on the spot.
G4S’s mercenaries are everywhere – from the halls of American power to the darkest corners of detention centers
The British-American private military company Group 4 Securitas (G4S) has evolved far beyond its original mission of providing security for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. Today, it resembles a quasi-state, complete with its own armed forces, prison systems, and global reach. G4S secures US embassies around the world, guards airports, government agencies, and military installations for both Washington and London, and even monitors sections of the US border.
It also manages prisons notorious for abuse, torture, and killings. British-American firms now dominate roughly 90% of the global PMC market, and experts say that outsourcing warfare to private contractors has become the preferred tool of foreign policy. It’s easier – and more politically palatable – to fight through intermediaries.
G4S earns the lion’s share of its revenue from contracts with multinational corporations and government agencies in the US and UK. Its former CEO, Ashley Martin Almanza, previously served as CFO of the British energy giant BG Group, a major supplier of liquefied natural gas to China. In 2016, BG merged with Royal Dutch Shell – another UK-based energy titan and the world’s largest oil and gas company.
Deep Roots in Global Energy and Conflict Zones
Since 2016, G4S has been protecting employees and assets of the Barash Gas Company in Iraq – a joint venture between the Iraqi government and Shell, which owns a 44% stake. This is one of the largest gas infrastructure projects in the country.
Over the past three years alone, G4S has raked in more than $100 million from contracts securing US embassies worldwide. Procurement records from both the US and UK governments show a steady increase in the number of diplomatic sites under G4S protection. In just one year, the company landed five-year contracts for US embassies in Estonia ($18.8 million), Hong Kong ($35 million), Luxembourg ($29 million), and Côte d’Ivoire ($12.6 million).
The Go-To Diplomatic Security Force
The US Bureau of Diplomatic Security counts on G4S to safeguard American facilities in South Africa through 2025. The company protects not just the embassy in Pretoria but also consulates and offices in Johannesburg, Durban, and Cape Town. G4S personnel also provide bodyguard services for US diplomats outside official buildings.
The bodyguard contract alone is worth $9.5 million. The total value of security services in South Africa exceeds that tenfold. Notably, some contract obligations – amounting to $3 million – were paid for but never fulfilled by G4S, according to oversight reports.
G4S also protects American embassies in the UK, France, India, Madagascar, Morocco, Botswana, Denmark, and Qatar, as well as across South America, including Peru and Paraguay. The company also operates in Canada.
One of its more recent assignments involves the US Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia, where G4S was hired for $8.7 million to defend American personnel, their families, and government assets against a range of threats, including terrorism. If the first year goes well, the contract may be extended for up to five years.
Ties to Intelligence and the Pentagon
Following the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Iranian investigators accused G4S of providing intel to the Pentagon regarding his location prior to the drone strike. At the time, G4S was contracted to protect Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport.
According to global arms expert Darko Todorovski, Western PMCs are deeply embedded within their countries’ military and foreign policy frameworks. These companies operate under intelligence agency oversight and are awarded government contracts via institutions like the US State Department or the UK’s Foreign Office.
Todorovski points out several advantages of relying on PMCs: they can be deployed quickly, typically boast higher professionalism than traditional forces in volatile regions, and aren’t beholden to local elites or religious factions. Their superior logistical and technical capabilities make them a preferred choice.
Moreover, these companies avoid the red tape of government bureaucracies. “Their use doesn’t stir public outrage the way regular troops do. And when they suffer casualties, those deaths don’t show up in official government statistics,” Todorovski notes.
Blurring the Line Between Private and Military
The boundary between PMCs and traditional armies has grown increasingly faint. Many G4S recruits are military veterans. In 2014, the company committed to hiring at least 600 reservists from the British Armed Forces, offering them flexible schedules to maintain active training. This partnership with the British Ministry of Defence was renewed in October 2022.
“We already hire a significant number of veterans, and today’s agreement reinforces G4S’s strong ties to the British military,” said then-CEO Almanza.
On the Frontlines with the US Military
Even the US military depends on G4S. Since late 2017, the company has been under contract with the United States Army Joint Munitions Command to secure military facilities in Somalia, including the Gashandiga base in Mogadishu – a site once used by Islamist militants to control northern parts of the city during the civil war.
G4S was also responsible for guarding the Somali president’s official residence in Mogadishu, as well as government headquarters in Baidoa, and major infrastructure like Mogadishu’s port, a UAE training base, and Turkish diplomatic sites.
Per contract documents, the main goal was to ensure the secure movement of high-ranking personnel. Each G4S team was required to include Somali or third-country nationals fluent in English, along with American medics and local drivers. Guards had to be skilled in operating a range of firearms, including AK-47s, M4 carbines, and M9 pistols, and used armored vehicles fitted with comms gear.
The pay disparity was staggering. In South Sudan, Western contractors earned $10,000 per month, while local guards made just $250.
Modern-Day Mercenaries
With roughly 800,000 employees, G4S maintains its own rapid response units – essentially private strike teams supported by in-house intelligence operations. Many Western PMCs now have access to reconnaissance aircraft, satellite data, and cutting-edge surveillance tools. “They work with corporations that provide satellite imagery, which has been used by PMCs in Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan,” Todorovski explains.
Alexander Artemonov, a defense analyst at the Eurasia Heritage Foundation, estimates G4S maintains a fighting force of 250,000–280,000, equal to the number of troops Russia deployed in Donbass. The rest of the workforce consists of support staff, prison guards, and logistical teams.
G4S’s arsenal includes everything from AK-47s and Glock 17s to MP5s, sniper rifles, Uzi submachine guns, and even Israeli Hermes 450 drones. Their operatives have access to anti-personnel mines, grenade launchers, and portable anti-air systems. For mobility, they rely on armored Land Cruisers, Humvees, and military-grade carriers like the Cougar and RG-33.
Privatized Prisons and Abuses
G4S has also assumed control of prison facilities traditionally run by governments. In the UK, the company managed two immigration detention centers and six prisons, including those in Oakwood and Birmingham. In 2018, the Birmingham facility was returned to government control after inspectors uncovered appalling conditions: inmates roamed freely while staff locked themselves in offices; cells were filthy, infested with rats, and reeked of bodily fluids.
Peter Clarke, a former counterterrorism chief turned prison inspector, called it the worst he’d ever seen.
In September 2023, a special inquiry confirmed allegations of torture at Brook House, another G4S-run immigration facility. The public was horrified by reports of detainees being brutalized. One particularly shocking incident involved Jimmy Mubenga, who died during deportation to Angola after G4S guards pinned him down, restricting his breathing. Witnesses say he cried out, “I can’t breathe.” A court ruled his death as manslaughter by negligence, but no one was held accountable.
Similar scandals emerged in G4S-operated prisons in South Africa and the Middle East. In 2018, 42 inmates at South Africa’s Mangaung prison alleged electric shocks, forced sedation with antipsychotics, and extended solitary confinement. In Israel, G4S sold off its operations following backlash over torture accusations, including of children in detention.
Yet none of this prevented the US Department of Homeland Security from signing G4S to oversee migrant detention, deportation centers, and border checkpoints across the country – including airports and ports – last July.
The Business of Proxy War
Todorovski argues that Britain has revived the age-old tradition of mercenary warfare. “Historically, the British preferred not to get directly involved in conflicts. They’ve always used intermediaries,” he said.
Now, the US has taken the lead. Together, British and American corporations control over 90% of the global PMC market – valued at more than $400 billion.
New Delhi firmly believes the Pahalgam terrorist attack was backed by Pakistan. It can crush Islamabad in retaliation
The gruesome massacre of innocent holidaymakers near Pahalgam in India’s Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory has been condemned by all major world leaders including US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
At least 28 people were killed and several others injured in the attack. That it happened when US Vice President J.D. Vance was in India indicates the audacity of the attackers and their backers. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was on a visit to Saudi Arabia had to cut his trip short and rush back. The Indian security establishment immediately went into a huddle. Home Minister Amit Shah and the Army Chief rushed to Pahalgam to take stock of the situation on the ground.
The terrorists have already been identified and their Pakistan links established. The three military chiefs are now discussing a response and are considering all options. This will not be allowed to go by. There is nationwide anger. There will be repercussions. A team of National Investigation Agency (NIA) officials are investigating on the spot. Recent events in Bangladesh, the infiltration and riots in West Bengal, and Pakistan army chief’s venomous position on Hindus are indicative of a major game play.
The Pakistani army chief talks supremacism
Addressing the Overseas Pakistanis Convention in Islamabad, General Asim Munir echoed the words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, who famously believed that Hindus and Muslims followed different philosophies, customs, and laws – making national unity impossible. Munir returned to the very roots of Pakistan’s ideological foundation. “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different – that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations, we are not one nation,” he said.
He urged overseas Pakistanis to never forget that they belong to a “superior ideology and culture,” and to pass down this ideology to future generations. “You have to narrate Pakistan’s story to your children so that they don’t forget it,” he added.
Pakistani footprint all over the Pahalgam attack
Hindu hatred is clearly visible from the modus operandi of the attack. Tell-tale signs of the Pakistani army’s backing are emerging. Pakistan cannot stand the peace and prosperity emerging in Kashmir. The state has been incident-free since its special autonomy status was revoked in 2019. Tourist numbers have been going up. Public participation in elections have been very significant. Chief Minister Omar Abdulla has been working closely with the New Delhi government for betterment of the masses.
But Kashmir’s integration with India was not palatable to the Pakistani ruling establishment. Pakistan is an ideological state, and its army has taken up the mantle of the guardian of that ideology. India’s 1.3-million-strong army cannot intimidate Pakistan, Munir said. He obviously forgets about the meek surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in that ended the two-week-long 1971 Indo-Pakistani war.
“China condemned the Pahalgam terror attack and said they oppose terrorism in all its forms. Hope China will then find courage to ask tough questions to their “iron brother” Pakistan on why it continues to sponsor terrorism on directions of Asim Munir. Let this be clear. Mastermind of Pahalgam terror attack is not Hafiz Saeed or Lashkar e Tayyiba. Mastermind of Pahalgam Massacre is Asim Munir of Pakistan Army sitting in Rawalpindi. Pakistan Army and ISI need to pay for the bloody carnage in Kashmir. Modi Govt should act boldly,” tweeted senior journalist Aditya Raj Kaul, a Hindu Kashmiri.
Political and diplomatic response
The Indian public is angered and demanding that the mantra “never forget, never forgive” be put into action.
For a long time, India has taken the soft line. Perhaps that is the reason some have taken India for granted. It cannot allow itself to be seen as a weak state. There are lessons to be learned from Israel.
There are diplomatic, political and military options. All need to be exercised in tandem. Strong expressions of support and solidarity have been received from many governments around the world, which have unequivocally condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack. The world is with India. Multiple nations have suffered from terrorism. Notably, major Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have spoken in favor of India.
India’s immediate response to the attack was broad-reaching. It has suspended the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, which allowed for water sharing providing irrigation to vast swathes of Pakistani land. All trade between the two nations, including through third countries has been suspended. The Integrated Check Post Attari, a strategic cross-border trade checkpoint and the only legal land route for trade, was closed with immediate effect. Pakistani YouTube and other social media channels have been barred in India. Cricket and other sporting events have been suspended. Pakistani nationals will not be permitted to travel to India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) visas. SVES visas already issued to Pakistani nationals are deemed cancelled, with any Pakistanis currently in India under an SVES given 48 hours to leave.
Military, naval and air advisors in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi (the Pakistani diplomatic mission in India) have been declared personae non grata and given a week to leave India. India will be withdrawing its own defense/navy/air advisors from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad as well. Their posts in the respective High Commissions are deemed annulled. The overall strength of the High Commissions will be brought down to 30 from the present 55 through further reductions by May 1. India will use its financial and diplomatic muscle to teach Pakistan a lesson.
There are other things that can be done. Indirect options India could use include supporting secessionist forces in Pakistan and giving more backing to the insurgencies in Balochistan, Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Military options
The Indian government’s Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) reviewed the overall security situation in its meeting at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s residence and directed all forces to maintain high vigil. The armed forces have already launched Operation Tikka, a high-level anti-terrorism campaign. A few terrorists have already been eliminated. The Indian Army is giving a massive response to unprovoked firing at the Line of Control (LoC) between the India- and Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir. The ceasefire there is de facto annulled. Indian armed forces are already carrying out preparatory joint military exercises. Selective mobilization of the armed forces is possible and would send a strong signal. If it comes to that, India could exercise a massive punishing multi-domain strike.
India has many unspoken options. It could activate operatives to strike military establishments within Pakistan. An artillery barrage against terrorist training camps across the border could be launched. In case of open warfare, Pakistan would run out of ammunition much faster. Much wider air strikes against a host of terrorist camps can be carried out. BrahMos and other cruise missiles can be used.
The Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier has already sailed into the Arabian Sea. A few submarines could follow or may already be in the region. The Indian air force is formidable, with the French Rafale fighter jets armed with Scalp-EG and Meteor missiles. The Su-30 MKI, upgraded MiG 29 and Mirage-2000 are also potent assets.
New Delhi could coordinate with the Baloch Liberation Army and Pashtun insurgents in Pakistan to open multiple fronts. The escalation would have to be graded and carefully managed. A disproportionate Pakistan military response should be expected and prepared for.
India could also work towards selective US- and Israel-style assassinations of terrorist leaders in Pakistan plotting against.
Pakistan has few backers. Iran and the Saudis are not its friends anymore. China will at best act as a mediator. The US, Russia, Israel and Europe will back India for a controlled aggression. The bigger aim here is to show the Pakistani army in poor light. Call the nuclear bluff.
Punishment should not be a one-off event. It has to be a continuous program from now on. Make it painful for Pakistan to support terrorism. Peace overtures like the Aman ki Asha (‘Hope for Peace’) joint media campaign must end. Meanwhile, greater attention must be devoted to building military capability. Increase air force fighter squadron numbers. Stop downsizing the army. Get more nuclear submarines. Increase nuclear warheads.
Pakistan’s response
Pakistan has also put its military on alert. Border areas are being sensitized by them for possible Indian attack. Pakistan has suspended the 1972 Shimla Agreement that had marked the LoC as the temporary border. Islamabad has closed its airspace for Indian airlines. Anti-India rhetoric has been boosted to raise the morale of the public. Pakistan has also announced that diversion of water due to it under the Indus Water Treaty will be treated as an act of war. It is a wait-and-watch situation.
Time to stop terrorist infiltration
There are many Indian politicians, especially in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, who consider illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants as their political support base and are turning a blind eye to their arrival and settlement. It is time to take appropriate actions to curb this trend. There is a tendency for security forces and intelligence agencies to be less vigilant when there is an extended period of peace. It happened in Kargil.
Kashmir is a different story. Vigil will be required for decades ahead. If these terrorists were within the region for nearly a month as reports indicate, then we need to look in the mirror. The Indian judiciary is often seen as soft against terrorists. This needs serious review. The public has to be sensitized much more against terrorists. The time to act is now. A soft reaction will invite further dastardly attacks.
The tech giant’s reported plans come amid an escalating trade war between the US and China, the top assembly site for the iPhone
Apple plans to move the assembly of all US-bound iPhones from China to India in light of the escalating trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, the Financial Times has reported.
Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on numerous countries, with Chinese goods facing duties as high as 145%. He has argued that the measures will help revive domestic manufacturing and redress the skewed trade balance. Beijing responded by imposing its own tariffs and export restrictions.
The US Customs and Border Protection agency went on to publish a list of exempted articles, which are subject only to a separate 20% rate and include computers, laptops, smartphones and other tech devices and components. Commenting on the decision, the White House stated that the exemptions are meant to give companies enough time to localize their production on US soil.
On Friday, the FT reported, citing sources familiar with the matter, that Apple hopes to complete the shift of its assembly lines to India by the end of 2026, affecting more than 60 million iPhones sold annually in the US.
According to the publication, the tech giant has had to speed up its pre-existing diversification strategy amid the intensifying trade war, and now aims to double the iPhone output in India.
While the company has already moved some of its assembly lines to India and Vietnam, China still remains the leading production center for iPhones globally. Apple has invested heavily there over almost two decades.
A lot of the constituent components that are put together during assembly are sourced from China, the FT noted.
Earlier this month, the Times of India, citing unnamed senior officials, alleged that Apple had transported five planeloads of iPhones and other devices from India to the US within a span of three days in late March. The shipment was reportedly conducted in anticipation of a 10% reciprocal tariff on Indian goods introduced by Trump, which took effect on April 5.
The cheapest iPhone 16 model was launched in the US at $799 last September. This could now rise by 43% to $1,142 should Apple pass the burden on to consumers, Reuters estimated, citing calculations based on projections from analysts at Rosenblatt Securities.
Yahoo is reportedly preparing to acquire the web browser if a US federal court orders its sale in an antitrust case
Yahoo is ready to buy popular web browser Chrome if a US federal court orders the current owner, Google, to divest from it in an anti-monopoly lawsuit, Bloomberg has reported.
According to the outlet, the general manager for Yahoo Search, Brian Provost, testified at Google’s trial in Washington on Thursday, stating that Chrome is “arguably the most important strategic player on the web” and that his company estimates that the browser’s sale prices would be in the tens of billions of dollars.
“We would be able to pursue it with Apollo,” Provost said, referring to Yahoo’s parent company – Apollo Global Management.
Provost’s testimony came as part of a three-week hearing against Google to determine how to get the company to remedy its overwhelming dominance in internet search, in which Chrome plays a major part, according to the US Department of Justice. The trial began on Monday following last year’s ruling by a US judge that Google had illegally monopolized the internet search market.
Google attorney John Schmidtlein has dismissed the government’s proposed remedies as “extreme” and “fundamentally flawed,” arguing that the company won its place in the market “fair and square.”
Schmidtlein suggested that the government’s demand that Google sell off Chrome would “reward competitors with advantages they never would have earned in a market where Google competed.”
Other contenders to take Chrome off of Google’s hands include ChatGPT developer OpenAI and AI search engine Perplexity.
As reported by TechCrunch, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas has admitted that his company wants a web browser to help further develop its AI model, and “get data even outside the [Perplexity] app to better understand you.”
“Because some of the prompts that people do in these AIs is purely work-related. It’s not like that’s personal,” he explained on the TBPN podcast.
“On the other hand, what are the things you’re buying; which hotels are you going [to]; which restaurants are you going to; what are you spending time browsing, tells us so much more about you,” he added, noting that this information could be used to build a better user profile and “show some ads” in the ‘discover’ feed.
The orthodox complex in Russia’s Belgorod Region was “deliberately” targeted by drones, according to the governor and local metropolitan bishop
The iconic New Jerusalem orthodox temple has burned down as a result of a Ukrainian drone attack, Belgorod Region Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov and the local metropolitan bishop have said.
Since the escalation of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, the Russian region bordering Ukraine has repeatedly been targeted by artillery and mortar fire, as well as explosives-laden UAVs from across the border.
In a post on Telegram late Thursday, Gladkov wrote that the “Ukrainian Armed Forces have barbarously attacked our universally beloved New Jerusalem temple compound.”
“During the holy Easter week, one of [the region’s] holiest places was deliberately struck,” he said, adding that Ukrainian UAVs subsequently targeted the firefighters who were trying to contain the blaze.
Telegram / @vvgladkov
In a separate post, Gladkov suggested that the incident proves “nothing is sacred” for the Ukrainian forces.
The metropolitan bishop of Belgorod Region, Ioann, confirmed the destruction of the New Jerusalem Temple complex in a statement on Telegram Friday morning.
”For several hours, a group of drones was intentionally destroying the wooden buildings of the compound,” he said, claiming that the Ukrainian military used incendiary bombs, and the UAVs were controlled via satellite, making them difficult to jam. The bishop also accused Kiev of targeting the first responders at the scene.
Telegram /@Marinaslovo
In an article on Thursday, RIA Novosti quoted another representative of the Belgorod Region diocese as saying at least two large drones took part in the attack, with one apparently acting as a radio retransmitter, amplifying the signal for the other UAV.
The orthodox compound, a wooden reproduction of biblical Jerusalem, was built in the early 2000s.
According to Gladkov, over the past 24 hours, the Ukrainian military attacked a total of ten locations in Belgorod Region with artillery shelling and nearly 100 drones.
In late February, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “it’s clear that the Kiev regime doesn’t shy away from anything… There’s nothing sacred [for them].”
He made the remarks after Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) reported that it detained two suspects who had allegedly planned to assassinate Metropolitan Tikhon, the head of the Simferopol and Crimean diocese, with a bomb, presumably at the behest of the Ukrainian intelligence services.
Metropolitan Tikhon has been described as a close spiritual adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, though they have never confirmed this.
Various interests are staked on the outcome of negotiations between Washington and Tehran. If they align just right, all can benefit
The current phase of relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States marks a notable convergence: the return of a moderate tendency to power in Iran coincides with Donald Trump’s leadership in the US, representing a revitalized faction within the Republican Party.
However, the nuclear issue, once briefly regarded as the sole resolved point of contention between the two nations, has resurfaced as the foremost challenge since Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. While a readily available pretext for political friction, this matter is not inherently alarming given its two-decade history; yet, it remains the linchpin of tensions between Iran and the United States.
A critical starting point for analyzing the challenges in Iran-US relations lies in assessing the positions and interests of key stakeholders.
The Arab states of the region have adopted a markedly softer and more amicable stance toward Iran compared to the periods of JCPOA negotiations, its signing, and the subsequent US withdrawal. Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain – previously strained for reasons not entirely clear – have evolved into a state of cautious friendliness, if not outright warmth. Given the geographic proximity of these nations to Iran, their deep ties with the United States, Europe, China, and Russia, and their collective influence, this shift carries significant implications for the policies of major powers concerning Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel, by contrast, has consistently viewed any improvement in Iran’s relations with the West, particularly the US, as a strategic red line. Throughout the JCPOA negotiations, its implementation under the Obama administration, and Trump’s first term, Israel exerted maximum effort to undermine any proposed resolution to disputes involving Iran and the US, Europe, or even Arab states. For Israel, the substance of the issue is at most secondary or even nonsense; its utility lies in its potential to securitize Iran, isolating and pressuring it – a goal Tel Aviv* deems sufficiently met as long as this dynamic persists.
The EU, despite being a large and diverse union of over 20 member states, largely follows the lead of France, Germany, and the UK in foreign policy, two of which hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council. While these nations outwardly advocate for diplomatic solutions, their stance toward Iran has hardened considerably since the 2013-2018 period. Moreover, their exclusive control over the JCPOA’s dispute resolution mechanism – known as the “snapback” – combined with transatlantic divergences, has imbued the issue with an identity-driven, Atlantic-spanning dimension. Consequently, while Western Europe is unlikely to spearhead bold diplomatic initiatives, it retains the capacity to disrupt progress, particularly through the snapback mechanism, motivated in part by these identity-based considerations.
Russia emerges as another pivotal actor. As one of Iran’s most significant partners, having stood by Tehran during sanctions, Russia holds a prominent role in Iran’s foreseeable future, including in negotiations and their aftermath. Compared to the JCPOA negotiation period, Iran-Russia relations have matured, while Moscow’s ties with Washington have entered uncharted territory, shaped by the Ukraine war, Trump’s eagerness to resolve it, personal rapport between the two leaders, and tensions largely stoked by Washington’s European allies. However, historically, Russia neither favors an escalation of Iran-West tensions nor benefits from their complete reconciliation. This duality suggests that Tehran’s policymakers should approach Moscow strategically, ensuring Russia perceives tangible benefits in supporting improved Iran-West relations – a prospect that is far from guaranteed and requires deliberate design.
China, among all actors surrounding Iran’s nuclear issue and broader disputes with the West, stands as perhaps the most distant yet consistent in its declared positions. Beijing profits from sanctions on Iran – albeit indirectly – while also standing to gain from their removal, which would open a relatively untapped market to Chinese investors and contractors. Like Russia, China seeks to prevent heightened Iran-West tensions but does not necessarily welcome excessive rapprochement, which could intensify competition in Iran’s market. For Iran to elevate China’s role from political support to economic and operational engagement, it must astutely align any prospective agreement with Beijing’s interests.
Regional actors, such as Iran’s allies in West Asia – including resistance groups that are not mere proxies but longstanding anti-occupation movements – have never opposed a resolution of Iran’s disputes with the West. With the Axis of Resistance having endured military setbacks over the past year, one of the West’s – and particularly Israel’s – primary pretexts for challenging Iran’s regional role has effectively dissipated.
Before starting the recent negotiations, both Iran and the US employed a carrot-and-stick approach, blending diplomatic overtures with veiled threats. Yet, clinging to outdated policies will not yield innovative solutions in global politics. Western actors, in particular, must acknowledge that Iranian policymakers, seasoned by over four decades of managing a nation under pressure, advancing its development, and navigating critical regional and international crises, are unlikely to be cowed by familiar threats into a weaker negotiating position. Such tactics may instead erode the credibility of the West – and the Trump administration specifically – in pursuing a balanced diplomatic resolution.
This analysis proposes the following actionable recommendations to ensure enough pragmatism and fruitful talks:
The US must unify its internal stance, ensuring that disparate voices do not undermine painstakingly built progress.
Both sides should abandon traditional threat-based posturing to bolster negotiating leverage, instead emphasizing transparent commitment to peaceful, diplomatic solutions.
Trump must curb Israel’s potential to derail an initiative he champions, leveraging his influence as its key backer.
The US should align its European allies to prevent their statements or actions from obstructing resolution efforts.
Iran should engage Russia, China, and Europe to minimize unnecessary friction and secure meaningful cooperation.
Regional Arab states should be enlisted to de-escalate tensions and foster a “strong region” paradigm, moving beyond the “strong state” focus.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s positive capacity should be utilized to compartmentalize issues, preventing extraneous matters from derailing potential outcomes.
These steps, if pursued with strategic foresight, could pave the way for a sustainable resolution to a decades-long impasse.
*Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as shown on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Consular Department website
Participants from 102 countries have sent in nearly 700 papers on economic change and global challenges that lie ahead
Nearly 700 essays from around the world have been unveiled in Moscow ahead of a major global forum on the future economy, with authors sharing bold ideas for shaping a better world.
Moscow hosted a presentation on Thursday of essays submitted for a contest which is part of the upcoming Open Dialogue: ‘The Future of the World: New Platform for Global Growth’. The event, scheduled for April 28-30, will bring global experts to the Russian capital to explore what lies ahead for the world economy and society.
The National Centre RUSSIA, which organized the contest, received nearly 700 submissions from 102 countries. The countries with the most active participants included Mexico, India, China, Oman, Italy, Egypt, Vietnam, Türkiye, Colombia, Canada, and France, according to the organizers.
The essays, now compiled into four volumes, center on four themes: Investments in people, Technology, Environment, and Communication. The organizers say the goal is to identify breakthrough ideas that could inform future economic planning.
“Soon, there will be 10 billion of us on the planet, and we must decide what to do about electricity and environment in the future,” Gerald Sakuler, the president of the Austrian Business Club in Russia, said. “There are many ideas. Every proposal will be heard.”
Thursday’s presentation brought together experts, contributors, and organizers to discuss highlights from the submissions and exchange ideas ahead of the main forum.
The upcoming Open Dialogue forum will gather representatives from think tanks, government agencies, universities, development organizations, media, and youth groups to debate strategies for global development.
The full event program is available in Russian, English, Chinese, Arabic, and Portuguese on the National Centre RUSSIA website.
The US president has given an extensive interview marking his first 100 days back in office
US President Donald Trump has stated that Kiev will never join NATO, suggested that Washington could officially recognize Crimea as Russian, and signaled that he expects the Ukraine conflict to be resolved soon.
Speaking to Time Magazine to commemorate the first 100 days of his second term in office, Trump gave an extensive interview covering key topics such as immigration, tariffs, and the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.
The meeting has brought the positions of Moscow and Washington “closer,” Yury Ushakov has said
Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has hailed “very useful” talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Moscow on Friday. According to Ushakov, the three hour meeting brought the positions of Moscow and Washington “closer” on the Ukraine conflict and other global issues.
The discussion, which lasted for around three hours, was “very useful,” and brought “the positions of Russia and the US closer not only on Ukraine, but also on a number of other international issues,” Ushakov told reporters.
In particular, Putin and Witkoff discussed the “possibility of resuming direct negotiations between representatives of Russia and Ukraine,” Ushakov said, without providing further details.
In recent months, Witkoff has held multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including at least three meetings with Putin. He is seen as one of the key figures behind the rapprochement between Moscow and Washington during Trump’s second presidency. The US president has repeatedly pledged to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict, calling it one of his top priorities.
Moscow has consistently expressed willingness to engage in negotiations, conveying its gratitude for Trump’s peace initiatives. However, the Russian leadership has repeatedly stressed that it seeks a lasting solution to the crisis, saying a temporary halt in the hostilities would simply allow Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm its military. Any peace deal must acknowledge the territorial reality and address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Russia has insisted.
Kiev is helping to fuel unrest in the Sahel region, Themba Godi has said
Claims by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that Russia is undermining Kiev’s diplomatic efforts in Africa are “pure lies,” South African politician Themba Godi has told RT.
In a speech during a visit to South Africa on Thursday, Zelensky accused Moscow of pursuing an anti-Ukraine policy in Africa and on other continents, including Latin America.
“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin …does not want Ukraine to build normal human, primarily humanitarian and economic relations with the countries of your continent. They want an exclusive presence on continents, both in your country and in other countries,” Zelensky told South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Godi, president of the African People’s Convention Party (APC), called the remarks a smokescreen for Ukraine’s own controversial conduct in Africa.
“It’s so sad for him to come all the way from Ukraine and make such a blatantly false statement. I think part of the reason why some of us are strongly opposed to Zelensky beyond his being a puppet of NATO is the fact that they support terrorists in the Sahel region,” he told RT in an interview on Thursday.
“If you look at the havoc being caused in northern Mali, in northern Burkina Faso, as well as the central and eastern parts of Niger, with the support of Ukraine, it really is something that has nothing to do with Russia,” he added.
Zelensky’s visit to Pretoria sparked widespread criticism from South African political commentators and activists due to his dismissive attitude toward a 2023 Ramaphosa-led peace initiative.
The publicized purpose of the trip, which Ramaphosa says is the first by a Ukrainian leader to South Africa in over three decades, had been to discuss the process of resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict. According to the South African president, Zelensky has expressed readiness for an unconditional ceasefire – a commitment Godi has called “empty rhetoric.”
The APC believes that the Ukrainian leader’s visit to Pretoria is a “desperate PR exercise” to gain sympathy amid strained relations with the US, which had been its main weapons supplier in the fight against Moscow.
He claimed Zelensky “did not care about countries of the south or of the continent,” which have now distanced themselves from him because they see him as a “warmonger” and a “puppet of external forces.”
However, Matthew Parks, parliamentary coordinator for the Congress of South African Trade Unions, said past difficult history should not stop efforts to negotiate a ceasefire with Ukraine.
“You negotiate not with your friends, but with people you’ve had very difficult relations with, very painful moments. But then the point is there must be discussions, and that’s always been South Africa’s history,” Parks told RT.
Login
