The Palestinian militant group has reportedly expressed readiness for a deal but stopped short of endorsing a temporary ceasefire

The Palestinian militant group Hamas has expressed readiness for a deal with Israel to end the war in Gaza, the Associated Press (AP) reported on Wednesday.

Hamas official Taher al-Nunu was quoted as saying the group was “ready to accept any initiative that clearly leads to the complete end to the war.” However, it reportedly stopped short of endorsing a 60-day ceasefire plan proposed by Washington.

The statement came after US President Donald Trump warned Hamas that rejecting the American-backed proposal would worsen its position. Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday that Israel “has agreed” to the terms needed to finalize the 60-day truce, during which all sides would work to bring the war to an end.

An Israeli official told AP the plan includes a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and mediated talks aimed at ending the conflict. However, Israel is not formally committing to a full cessation of hostilities as part of the current proposal, the official said.

Hamas, in a brief statement on Wednesday, reportedly confirmed it had received the proposal from mediators and was working to “bridge gaps” in order to return to the negotiating table. A Hamas delegation is expected to meet with Egyptian and Qatari mediators in Cairo, a source told the outlet.

The militant group has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages – fewer than half of whom are believed to be alive – in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal and a permanent end to the war. Israel has rejected those terms.

“There will be no Hamas,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a speech on Wednesday. He has insisted the group must surrender, disarm, and leave Gaza, conditions Hamas refuses to accept.

The war, now in its 22nd month, has devastated Gaza. According to the Hamas-run health ministry, the death toll in the enclave surpassed 57,000 by Wednesday, as Israeli strikes intensified amid ceasefire talks.

The conflict began with a Hamas-led assault on southern Israel that killed around 1,200 people and took 250 hostage.

European members cannot provide enough military support to Kiev without Washington, Mark Rutte has said

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said he “totally understands” the US prioritizing its own national interests, but stressed that European allies cannot continue backing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia without support from Washington.

Rutte made the remarks in a Wednesday interview with Fox News, responding to reports that Washington has scaled back critical military aid to Kiev, including deliveries of air defense ammunition, missiles, and artillery shells.

“I totally understand that the US always has to make sure that their own interests are covered,” the NATO chief said, but argued that “flexibility” was needed.

“In the short term, Ukraine cannot do without all the support it can get when it comes to ammunition and to air defense systems,” Rutte stated.

When it comes to the burden shift from the US to Europe, that’s taking place, but we cannot do without the practical US support.

According to Matthew Whitaker, Washington’s envoy to NATO, the cut in US aid to Ukraine is part of President Donald Trump’s domestic-focused policy shift.

“This is what ‘America first’ looks like,” he told Fox News on Wednesday. The Pentagon needs to “make sure that the US has the strategic defense capabilities necessary to project power,” Whitaker stated.

The US president has previously criticized the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid sent to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden. Trump has instead pushed for peace talks, while demanding that NATO allies take on a greater role in supporting Kiev and increase their own military spending.

Last week, European members of the US-led military bloc pledged to provide Ukraine with more than €35 billion ($41 billion) in aid and vowed to increase their NATO military spending to 5% of GDP over the next decade, up from a longstanding 2% target.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that such a “catastrophic” burden on NATO state budgets could spell “the organization’s collapse.”

The planned redesign reportedly seeks to replace historical figures with diversity themes

A plan by the Bank of England (BoE) to redesign pound banknotes with diversity in mind has triggered a backlash from some politicians and members of the public, who are accusing the regulator of “wokery.”

On Wednesday, the BoE announced the launch of a public consultation on potential themes for the next series of notes.

”Our banknotes have celebrated notable historical figures since 1970, when William Shakespeare became the first person other than the monarch to feature on a banknote. However, there are many ways to represent the UK,” the regulator said in a statement.

The reverse side of the latest series of notes in circulation features the portraits of UK’s wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (£5), 19th-century novelist Jane Austen (£10), Romantic-era painter J.M.W. Turner (£20), and pioneering mathematician Alan Turing (£50).

The public has been invited to suggest themes such as nature, architecture and landmarks, the arts, culture and sport, innovation, and major national milestones. Traditional historical figures remain an option, and each note will continue to feature the reigning monarch’s portrait.

Victoria Cleland, the Bank of England’s chief cashier, said banknotes “serve as a symbolic representation of our collective national identity and an opportunity to celebrate the UK.” She added that “real diversity,” including gender, ethnicity and disability, could be taken into account when planning new designs.

That position drew sharp criticism from Conservative politicians.

“This is wrongheaded wokery. We should be proud of our history, not sideline it,” said Shadow Communities Secretary Kevin Hollinrake. Former Business Secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg added, “The Bank of Wokeness wants to ignore our history and heroes to model itself on the unutterable banality of euro notes.”

Some social media users accused regulator of launching “an assault” on British heritage, history and culture. Others suggested author J.K. Rowling, a prominent and polarizing figure in debates over gender identity whose views have riled many LGBTQ+ advocates, as a candidate for the redesign.

The Bank of England introduces new banknotes based on various factors. The most recent series, introduced between 2016 and 2021, marked a significant shift from paper to polymer, offering improved durability and security features.

The consultation will remain open through July, and the final decision rests with BoE governor Andrew Bailey.

The Ukrainian military could run out of key ammunition stocks by late summer, the German tabloid has claimed

The US decision to suspend its supply of weapons to Ukraine could make Kiev’s situation dire in less than two months, the German tabloid Bild has reported, citing military experts. Without America’s support, the Ukrainian military would struggle to fight Russia in several major fields, the outlet stated.

Washington’s envoy to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday that the decision to halt arms shipments was made as part of the “America first” policy. He also said that the US needs to focus on maintaining its own “strategic defense capabilities” and particularly make sure that “we have enough Patriot missiles.”

Patriot missiles were included by several Western media outlets, including Politico and NBC News, among the categories of weapons that will no longer be sent to Kiev. The list also includes Stinger and AIM air-to-air missiles, hundreds of Hellfire and GMLRS systems, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells.

According to Bild, the lack of Patriot missiles could deal a particularly significant blow to Ukraine’s air defense capabilities as the US-made weapons are reportedly the only ones capable of intercepting Russian ballistic missiles.

The halt in deliveries of AIM missiles could potentially leave the Ukrainian military struggling to intercept Russian strike drones, the tabloid stated. The lack of GMLRS munitions would also reportedly be “devastating” as it would make US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launchers used by the Ukrainian military “virtually useless.” 

Kiev’s forces have just enough western-supplied weapons to last them until late summer, Bild reported, citing Carlo Masala, a political scientist and defense expert heading the Intelligence and Security Studies program at the Bundeswehr University of Munich.
After that, the situation “will become critical,” Masala told the tabloid, adding that the Ukrainian military is heavily reliant on Western arms shipments.

US President Donald Trump has previously questioned the rationale behind endless aid to Ukraine. He also made no specific promises to Kiev at a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague last week.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that Western weapons supplies only prolong hostilities and human suffering while having no effect on the eventual outcome of the conflict.

The bloc’s heavy dependence on Chinese raw materials is eroding its industrial base, AMG Lithium’s CEO has said

The European Union’s over-reliance on Chinese raw materials could reduce the bloc’s industry to the point where it might as well become “a province of China,” a German executive has warned.

Stefan Scherer, CEO of electric vehicle battery producer AMG Lithium, told The Guardian on Wednesday that without temporary protections, the bloc risks falling further behind in key technologies.

China currently refines around 60% of the world’s lithium and dominates global battery component production, giving it outsized influence over critical supply chains.

“Europe has to become independent of China,” Scherer told the newspaper at the company’s site in Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany.

Despite pledges by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to reduce dependency and boost domestic production, Scherer said the market continues to be flooded with cheaper Chinese imports, from steel to entire battery units.

Without decisive measures from Brussels, he argued, the EU’s industrial base will continue to erode. “It might be better to apply to be a province of China,” he said. “It’s an interesting thought if you think it through. We are really at a tipping point and it has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine, it’s a complete change of global relationships.”

Von der Leyen has acknowledged the risks of over-reliance on Beijing and pushed for “de-risking” rather than full decoupling. She has also accused China of using market-distorting tactics that threaten to de-industrialize parts of Europe – a claim firmly rejected by Chinese officials.

Scherer also highlighted the risk posed by worsening EU-US trade relations, warning of further strain on Germany’s struggling auto industry.

Brussels and Washington remain locked in talks ahead of a July 9 deadline, after which the US may impose a 50% tariff on all EU imports. European officials are seeking to soften a proposed 10% baseline levy and win concessions – including reductions to a 25% tax on cars and a 50% duty on steel and aluminum.

The German Economic Institute has estimated that Germany could lose up to €200 billion ($236 billion) by 2028 if the tariffs are fully implemented.

The US president has vowed to stop Zohran Mamdani from destroying the city

US President Donald Trump has accused Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani of trying to “destroy New York,” calling him a “communist lunatic.” In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, the president promised to save the Big Apple.

Mamdani swept to victory in the Democratic primary last week, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo with 56% of the vote. The assemblyman from Queens has described himself as a democratic socialist and is running on a platform that includes fare-free public transit, rent freezes, universal childcare, and publicly owned grocery stores.

”As president of the United States, I’m not going to let this communist lunatic destroy New York. Rest assured, I hold all the levers, and have all the cards. I’ll save New York City, and make it ‘Hot’ and ‘Great’ again, just like I did with the Good Ol’ USA!” Trump wrote.

Earlier this week, Mamdani got the president’s attention after he vowed to prevent ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents from operating in New York City and “deporting our neighbors.”

Speaking at a detention facility in Florida on Tuesday, the president threatened to arrest the mayoral nominee if he tries to interfere with ICE raids.

”We do not need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I am going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation,” Trump said, suggesting that law enforcement would look into whether Mamdani is in the country legally.

Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, moved to the US as a child and became a naturalized citizen in 2018.

Responding to Trump’s remarks, Mamdani accused the US leader of trying to intimidate dissenters. “He threatened me with arrest and deportation not because I have broken any law, but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city,” he said on X.

The hostile steps seriously damage bilateral relations, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said

Azerbaijan has not granted the Russian citizens recently arrested in Baku access to consular services, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

A Baku court jailed at least ten Russian nationals on Tuesday for four months pending trial. Two senior journalists from the Sputnik Azerbaijan news agency, as well as at least eight other Russians, have been behind bars in the country since Monday. Moscow has slammed the arrests as “unlawful,” and has demanded the Russians’ immediate release.

“We have requested that employees of the embassy’s consular department be allowed to visit the Russian citizens,” but access has so far “not been granted,” Zakharova said in a press briefing on Wednesday.

She demanded that “those who want to spoil bilateral relations” cease attempts to further escalate the situation. A number of Azerbaijani news outlets have been spreading “fake news,” she added.

“These steps cause serious damage to interstate relations,” the spokeswoman said.

Earlier Azerbaijani reports about the possible closure of Russian-language schools in the country had been denied by Baku’s Education Ministry, Zakharova added.

Bilateral relations between Moscow and Baku have been strained as of late. The diplomatic downturn was sparked by a police raid in Russia’s Yekaterinburg last week, which targeted an alleged ethnic crime ring composed of Russian nationals of Azerbaijani origin. It was part of an investigation into a series of murders dating back as far as 2001.

Two elderly suspects died during the operation, at least one of whom suffered heart failure, according to preliminary information. The incident spurred outrage in Azerbaijani media and among local officials, who have accused Moscow of ethnic bias.

Five of the six men arrested have been charged, after one turned state’s evidence, Russian authorities reported on Wednesday.

Top law enforcement officials from both sides are in direct discussions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a briefing on Wednesday.

When asked to comment on recent video reports that appeared to show bruises and traces of blood on a number of the Russian nationals detained in Azerbaijan, Peskov noted that Moscow had seen the footage and “noted every detail.”

Russia will “defend the legitimate interests” of its citizens, and will “use all available means” to that end, he said.

The Russian embassy in Baku has confirmed that Russians in Azerbaijan have increasingly complained that they and their families have been subjected to violence.

Fifty years after Helsinki, little remains of Europe’s security order

In times of upheaval, it is tempting to draw comparisons with the past. We search for patterns, wondering if things will repeat. As Israel and the United States waged war against Iran, many were reminded of other historical calamities: the outbreak of world wars, or more regionally, the destruction of Iraqi statehood in the early 2000s. Experience may be instructive, but it rarely repeats in quite the same way. This extraordinary campaign has shown that once again.

Yet if we look at the deeper logic of state behavior, there is often more consistency. Even so, paradigms do shift; and the future can be predicted, in part, if we apply knowledge and imagination.

Fifty years ago this month, in July 1975, leaders of 35 European states, the United States, and Canada gathered in Helsinki to sign the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). That landmark document crowned years of negotiation over how to manage coexistence between ideological systems whose rivalries had shaped the entire postwar world. The act formalized the status quo after World War II, including state borders and spheres of influence, especially between the two Germanies, Poland, and the Soviet Union. It confirmed the division of Europe, and the rules by which that division would be managed.

Half a century is a long time. Counting back fifty years from Helsinki takes us to 1925, a brief interwar calm. Back then, the great powers believed the age of world wars was behind them, even as conflict potential was building on social, economic, ideological, military, and technological fronts. The Second World War was an unimaginable catastrophe, and the victors were determined to stop anything like it happening again. From that came a new international system. Despite the chronic Cold War confrontation that sometimes turned acute, mutual constraints and a stable balance of power preserved Europe’s security. The CSCE then cemented this relative stability.

The past fifty years have brought equally profound shifts in the international order, yet they are often perceived differently. In 1975, hardly anyone referred to 1925 as a framework; the eras were understood to be totally distinct. Today, in contrast, the Helsinki Accords are still cited as a supposed foundation of European security, and their principles treated as universal.

There is no arguing with the ideals the Helsinki Final Act set out: respect for sovereignty, commitment to avoid the use of force, upholding borders, and promoting cooperation for mutual development. At that time, these promises were credible because they were backed by a durable balance of power – a balance guaranteed by Cold War competition. But the Cold War ended long ago, and with it the system of checks and balances that gave those promises substance.

For the United States and its allies, the 1975 Helsinki framework (and the even earlier settlements at Yalta and Potsdam) were always seen as reluctant compromises with totalitarian adversaries. When the socialist bloc collapsed and the Soviet Union dissolved a decade and a half later, Western leaders felt confirmed in their historical righteousness. They believed they had a mandate to enforce the Helsinki principles as they interpreted them – this time on their own terms, with no rival power to check them. The disappearance of previous guarantees was not frightening to the West but encouraging.

Today, on this anniversary, we must ask how relevant those ideals still are. The liberal world order is unraveling, and even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which inherited the CSCE’s mission, is struggling to justify its existence.

In the 1970s, world war was the fixed point of reference. Negotiations did not create a balance; they preserved it. The limits of what was acceptable had been established decades earlier, and the CSCE merely updated them.

Had the Cold War ended with a clear and recognized victor, a new framework might have emerged, with widespread legitimacy. But because the outcome was never fully formalized, strategic uncertainty took its place. Everyone assumed the West had won, but no treaty codified it. That opened the door for every power to try to revise the settlement whenever the balance of power shifted. And when the stronger party – the United States – began ignoring its own declared rules to chase short-term advantage, the system began to unravel even faster.

The OSCE still claims to rest on the order born in 1945 and affirmed in 1975, but that order no longer exists. Around the globe, countries are revisiting the results of World War II, challenging old hierarchies in different ways. That alone undermines Europe’s postwar stability. Meanwhile, the West has lost its once-undisputed ability to impose its preferences on others.

The United States is struggling to redefine its place in the world, with no clear outcome yet. Europe has lost its status as the world’s political steward. Eurasia is becoming a more integrated space, though still unfinished. The Middle East is undergoing profound change, while Asia – from its eastern to southern edges – is a field of intense competition, even as it drives global growth.

At moments like this, everything seems to move at once, including borders – both physical and moral. All the reference points are shifting simultaneously.

So, is the Helsinki legacy completely irrelevant? Not entirely. Its core mission was to stabilize a known confrontation, to give it structure and predictability. Today’s world does not have that kind of stable confrontation, and is unlikely to develop one soon, because events are too chaotic and too multidirectional. There is no solid balance of power to anchor things.

Trying to copy Helsinki logic in Asia, for example, would only backfire. There, globalization has created massive interdependence – even between rivals. Forcing a political-military architecture on top of that would worsen tensions rather than calm them, subordinating economic logic to rigid power blocs. The Old World was prone to this mistake; Asia would suffer for repeating it.

Nor can we expect the OSCE to recover its conflict-management role in Europe, given the gap between its lofty ambitions and its actual means.

However, there is still something to learn from Helsinki. Diplomacy then was guided by classical principles: weighing complex interests, acknowledging you cannot achieve everything, maintaining at least a minimum of trust, and respecting your counterpart even amid deep ideological opposition. These approaches seem obvious, but after decades of liberal moral posturing and talk of “the right side of history,” they are almost revolutionary once more.

Perhaps we must relearn those basic diplomatic virtues. Helsinki’s experience – born of the worst of wars but committed to peace – reminds us that respect, realism, and a readiness to talk can matter far more than fantasies of ideological purity.

A drone has successfully struck the German-made tank in Sumy Region, the defense ministry has said

Russian troops have eliminated a German-made Leopard 2A6 tank in Ukraine’s Sumy Region, RIA Novosti reported on Wednesday, citing a Defense Ministry statement.
A video reportedly showing the tank being hit by a kamikaze drone was published by the news agency.

The tank was spotted near the village of Pisarevka in the north-eastern Ukrainian region during a reconnaissance flight carried out by the Russian military, the statement said. The operator then decided to strike the armor in a “weak spot” located under its turret, the ministry added.

A short clip from a first-person view (FPV) drone’s camera was published by RIA. The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flies at a low altitude over a dirt road going through a village, before spotting the Leopard 2A6 pulling into the road, and swiftly zeroing in on it.

Russian troops entered Sumy Region earlier this year, after ending a short-lived Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Region, which began last August. Moscow seeks to create a “buffer zone” in the area in order to protect the national border from attacks. According to President Vladimir Putin, it is already 10-12km deep.

On Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported the successful retrieval of another German-made Leopard 2A6 tank from a battlefield. The tank had been hit by a FPV drone this past winter in a strike that damaged its track drive, the ministry said. It was abandoned by its crew in Russia’s Kursk Region and remained there after its liberation. According to the statement, the tank had “almost a full ammunition load” and received “no critical damage.”

In May, the Russian defense manufacturer Rostec stated that German-made Leopard 2A6 tanks were ill-suited for modern warfare. “The survivability of the tank may be insufficient… amid attacks from various directions with drones and modern man-portable missiles,” the tech giant said at the time.

In April, German media reported, citing a deputy military attaché in Berlin’s embassy in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military had complained that Leopard 2A6s were expensive to maintain and nearly impossible to repair on the battlefield.

The Russian foreign minister has not worked in vain, since he made Mark Rutte remember Christ, Maria Zakharova has said

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte mentioning Jesus Christ when talking about Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov means that Moscow’s top diplomat is doing good job, ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

She was referring to a brief interview Rutte gave Fox News on Wednesday. The NATO chief sought to diminish the role of the Russian foreign minister by claiming that he “has been foreign minister of Russia … since the birth of Jesus Christ. And since then, nothing… useful came out of his month.”

“Not for nothing has Sergey Lavrov been working for so many years since he has made the NATO Secretary General remember Jesus Christ,” Zakharova quipped in response in a Telegram statement.

A veteran diplomat, Lavrov has headed the Russian Foreign Ministry for more than 20 years, since 2004.

Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, has been in the NATO top job for less than a year, but already found himself at the center of controversy at the bloc’s summit last week. Some European officials were unhappy with the level of flattery he used to win over US President Donald Trump during the meeting, according to Politico.

“People are so embarrassed,” one official told the outlet, adding that “the sucking up was pretty over the top.” Rutte called Trump “daddy” during the summit and sent him a gushing message praising the US attack on Iran's nuclear sites ahead of the summit.

The US president was quick to post the NATO chief’s message online. The White House also shared a clip on social media showing Trump’s participation in the summit and accompanied by Usher’s song ‘Daddy’s home’.

The population of the big cat in Russia has increased to 750, according to the foundation started by the president

Russia’s population of Amur tigers, also known as Siberian tigers, is no longer under threat of extinction, the chair of the Amur Tiger Center announced on Wednesday. The foundation was launched in 2013 by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a long-time supporter of protecting the endangered animals.

Over the past 13 years, conservation efforts have raised the number of the big cats in the Russian Far East from around 430 to 750, according to Konstantin Chuychenko.

”The goal set out in the national tiger conservation strategy has been achieved,” he told reporters at the Land of Big Cats exhibition in Moscow. Chuychenko encouraged the public to visit the Far East to see the animals in their natural habitat.

The Amur tiger is native to forests in Russia’s Far East and Northeast China. It is the world's largest cat subspecies and the only one adapted to cold, snowy climates.

Despite progress in Russia, the Amur tiger remains classified as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), meaning it still faces a very high risk of extinction globally. A formal status change would require further international assessment.

Russia’s 750 Amur tigers live in protected areas and remote forests. Several hundred more are kept in zoos and wildlife parks around the world.

London has reportedly sought to join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention to support its exporters in the wake of Brexit

The EU has refused to allow the UK join a streamlined network that offers lower tariffs to 20 countries that trade with the bloc, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing officials.

According to the article, the UK had sought to join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) convention, established in 2012 to align rules of origin across trade deals between the EU and countries in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The framework allows manufacturers to qualify for lower tariffs when using components sourced from multiple member countries.

Since leaving the EU in 2020, Britain has ruled out rejoining the single market or customs union, but business groups have backed PEM membership as a practical step to help exporters cope with new trade barriers. The UK government included the plan in the trade strategy it published last week, saying it could reduce “complex paperwork” and provide businesses with more flexibility.

Trade experts say the move depends on EU approval, as the UK would need to amend its post-Brexit trade agreement with Brussels to adopt PEM rules – even though the convention itself is not exclusive to the EU.

“For it to be meaningful for the UK, the EU would need to agree to incorporate the PEM rules of origin into the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This gives the EU de facto blocking powers,” Sam Lowe, trade lead at the consultancy Flint Global, told the FT.

EU officials told the outlet that Brussels had previously indicated it was open to the idea, but now sees the move as not in the bloc’s interest. The European Commission reportedly fears that UK goods could unfairly qualify for low-tariff access.

The rejection marks the first sign of tension since both sides declared a “reset” in relations at a May summit, where they pledged closer energy ties and progress on a veterinary deal to ease agrifood checks.

Separately, the EU is demanding full UK compliance with the Windsor Framework, agreed upon in February 2023, before signing off on a veterinary deal that would ease checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea.

Northern Ireland, part of the UK, shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, and continues to follow some EU rules to avoid a hard border. The final phase of the framework took effect on July 1. Retailers have called the new labelling and customs rules “bureaucratic madness,” as hundreds of products now face extra checks when moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

The UK has said it remains committed to the framework and continues to engage with PEM members, including the EU.

India’s PM believes the platform will contribute to a “balanced multipolar world order”

BRICS is a crucial platform for fostering cooperation and collaboration in the Global South and is exploring ways to promote the interests of emerging economies, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Wednesday.

Modi’s comments come ahead of the BRICS Summit, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro on July 6-7. “As a founding member, India is committed to BRICS as a vital platform for cooperation among emerging economies,” Modi said. “Together, we strive for a more peaceful, equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.”

BRICS was initially established, primarily as an economic group, in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2010. In 2024, the bloc extended full membership to Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. Indonesia became a full member in 2025. Over 30 nations have applied to join the influential organization. Modi left Delhi on Wednesday for a five-nation visit to Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil, and Namibia. 

”I am confident that my visits to the five countries will reinforce our bonds [and] friendship across the Global South, strengthen our partnerships on both sides of the Atlantic, and deepen engagements in the multilateral platforms such as BRICS, the African Union, ECOWAS and the CARICOM,” Modi said.

In June, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar told news agency AFP that “strong sentiments” in the Global South regarding the perceived unfairness of the present international order have fueled a desire for change. 

In addition to being a founding member of BRICS, New Delhi is also continuing to engage Western countries in what has been called a policy of “strategic autonomy.” The South Asian nation is a member of the Quad, a diplomatic group that includes Australia, Japan, and the United States, along with India. Jaishankar is presently in Washington for a meeting of its foreign ministers.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has accused Russia of militarizing the region

Germany will send navy ships to patrol Arctic waters in response to Russia’s growing military presence in the region, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced on Monday. Russia has insisted that it is mirroring NATO moves in the far north to maintain balance.

Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that Moscow is  implementing an appropriate response strategy to potential encroachments on the country’s sovereignty across Russia’s 24,000km Arctic coastline.

At a joint press conference in Copenhangen with his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, Pistorius delcared “as early as this year, Germany will show its presence in the North Atlantic and the Arctic.”

The deployment, dubbed ‘Atlantic Bear’, will be a response to mounting maritime threats and because “Russia is militarizing the Arctic,” he claimed.

A support ships would “go from Iceland to Greenland and then on to Canada” to take part in joint military drills with NATO allies, including Denmark, Norway, and Canada, Pistorius claimed.

“In addition, we will deploy our maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, and frigates to demonstrate our commitment to that region,” he added.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in April that members of the US-led military bloc are “working together” in the Arctic to “defend this part of NATO territory.”

The Kremlin has insisted that NATO’s continuing militarization of the region is unwarranted, and that Russia will mirror the moves taken by the bloc.

In March, Putin reiterated that Moscow is “concerned by the fact that NATO countries as a whole are more frequently designating the far north as a bridgehead for possible conflicts.”

“I would like to emphasize that Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” the Russian president said. He stressed, however, that Moscow would “reliably protect” its interests in the region by reinforcing its military contingent in response to Western actions.

The alliance’s latest summit avoided confronting China but could not cover up the efforts to contain the Asian great power

The June NATO summit, held in The Hague, ended with a significant headline: a collective pledge to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold target, far exceeding the current 2% benchmark, signals a new era of militarization in the West, reflecting anxieties about a rapidly changing world order. While China was notably absent from the summit’s final declaration, the specter of the Asian giant loomed large over the event. The omission appears tactical rather than strategic – a thinly veiled attempt to avoid escalating tensions, even as NATO members ramp up rhetoric and military preparations clearly aimed at containing Beijing.

Though the summit declaration remained silent on China, the alliance’s leadership left little doubt about their true concerns. NATO’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, used the summit sidelines to sound alarm bells over China’s “massive military build-up”. Echoing the now-familiar Western narrative, Rutte linked China – alongside Iran and North Korea – to Russia’s military operations in Ukraine, accusing Beijing of supporting Moscow’s war efforts.

These remarks followed Rutte’s June address at London’s Chatham House, where he described China’s military expansion as happening “at breakneck speed” and labeled Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, and Moscow as an “awful foursome.” This framing makes clear that the NATO establishment and US leadership regard China not as a partner or even a rival, but a threat.

The perception of China as an imminent danger was also echoed at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May, where US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of a potential Chinese military move against Taiwan and reiterated Washington’s commitment to regional allies – albeit while pressing them to increase their own defense budgets. His remarks left no doubt: the US strategic focus is firmly on the Indo-Pacific, even at the expense of its traditional European commitments.

In a notable diplomatic snub, the leaders of Australia, Japan, and South Korea – the so-called “Indo-Pacific partners” of NATO – cancelled their plans to attend the summit in The Hague. This decision, viewed by observers as a pointed message, undermined NATO’s aspiration to consolidate its influence in the region.

Since the 2022 Madrid summit, when NATO adopted its “Strategic Compass” and for the first time classified China as a “systemic challenge,” the alliance has moved steadily to incorporate the Asia-Pacific into its strategic thinking. It now considers developments in East Asia as directly relevant to Euro-Atlantic security. As such, NATO seeks deeper cooperation with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand to uphold what it calls the “rules-based order” – a euphemism for Western hegemony.

However, the absence of these Indo-Pacific leaders suggests a growing discomfort with NATO’s expanding footprint. For many regional actors, NATO’s presence in Asia represents not stability, but the risk of being drawn into geopolitical conflicts under the guise of shared security.

Further adding to regional unease, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a controversial message at the Shangri-La Dialogue, warning Beijing that NATO could be involved in Southeast Asia unless China convinces North Korea to withdraw its troops from Russia. This statement not only mischaracterized Beijing’s independent foreign policy and its complex relations with Pyongyang but also marked a sharp departure from France’s previous resistance to NATO’s involvement in Asia-Pacific matters. Such remarks, however, are increasingly aligned with the alliance’s real trajectory: NATO is no longer content with transatlantic defense. Its strategic horizon is now global, and its compass points East.

NATO-China relations, once limited and mostly symbolic, are now strained to the point of near-hostility. The first Chinese representative visited NATO headquarters in 2002, and both sides cooperated on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden after 2008. Since then, however, the relationship has eroded amid intensifying geopolitical competition and diverging security philosophies.

Beijing has become increasingly vocal in its criticism. Chinese authorities responded sharply to Rutte’s remarks at The Hague, accusing NATO of spreading disinformation about China’s stance on Ukraine and conflating the Taiwan question – which Beijing insists is a purely domestic matter – with a war between states. Chinese officials emphasized that NATO’s role in the Asia-Pacific is unwelcome and destabilizing, viewing the alliance as a Cold War relic now repurposed to uphold US dominance and contain China’s rise.

For China, NATO is not just a military alliance, but a political tool used by Washington to limit Europe’s engagement with Beijing. From this perspective, NATO’s eastward ambitions threaten to derail the potential for constructive China-Europe cooperation, replacing it with division and distrust. China’s concerns are not limited to NATO. The revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), the emergence of the “Squad,” and the 2021 formation of AUKUS – a trilateral pact between the US, UK, and Australia – have only deepened Beijing’s fears of encirclement.

The AUKUS agreement, under which Australia is to receive nuclear-powered submarines from the US worth $240 billion, has introduced a new and dangerous element into regional security dynamics. Canberra will gain long-range strike capability for the first time and become only the second nation – after the UK – to receive access to US nuclear propulsion technology. Though the Trump administration has initiated a formal review of AUKUS, few expect significant changes. On the contrary, the pact is likely to reinforce the militarization of the region and increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.

In contrast to NATO’s bloc-based approach, China promotes a regional security framework rooted in multilateralism, inclusiveness, and dialogue. Beijing advocates for an ASEAN-centered architecture and supports institutions like the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES), and the East Asia Summit. It also backs the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and has launched the Global Security Initiative to advance regional stability. Most significantly, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a key platform for Eurasian states to coordinate on security, with the June meeting of defense ministers in Qingdao underscoring its role in promoting collective peace without resorting to confrontation or hegemonism.

The NATO summit may have avoided naming China, but it failed to conceal the reality of growing confrontation. While the alliance doubles down on military spending and expands its strategic reach into Asia, the Global South and a number of key Asia-Pacific states appear increasingly wary of NATO’s global ambitions.

As the world stands at a strategic crossroads, two competing visions of international security are on display. On one side, NATO and its partners advocate a “rules-based order” backed by military alliances and deterrence. On the other, China offers a model grounded in multipolarity, multilateral cooperation, consensus-building, and mutual respect.

The choice, increasingly, is not between East vs. West – but between confrontation and coexistence.

Kiev has summoned Washington’s envoy after a reported halt of military deliveries

Ukraine has summoned the US chargé d’affaires in Kiev, John Ginkel, following reports that Washington had suspended deliveries of key weapons systems. Military experts and Western officials all warn that the country cannot sustain conflict in the short term without continued military support.

Several American media outlets, including The New York Times, Politico, and NBC News, reported on Wednesday that the US had paused shipments of Patriot missile interceptors, GMLRS rockets, Hellfire missiles, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells. NBC reported that some of the shipments had already arrived in Europe but were withheld from being transferred to Ukrainian forces.

According to a statement issued by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Ginkel was “invited” to a discussion by Foreign Minister Andrey Sybiga on Wednesday. 

During the talks, the Ukrainians emphasized “the critical importance of continuing the deliveries of previously allocated defense packages,” particularly air defense systems. 

The US envoy was informed that any “delay or procrastination in supporting Ukraine’s defense capabilities” would prolong the conflict.

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry has not confirmed the pause. In a statement on Wednesday, it said that it is “clarifying the current factual circumstances of the supplies,” stressing that Kiev has not received any official notifications about the suspension. 

According to media reports, the Pentagon halted the deliveries after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a review of available weapons stockpiles, citing concerns over munitions depletion. 

White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly has confirmed that some transfers had been paused following a Department of Defense assessment of global commitments, stating that “this decision was made to put America’s interests first.”

The latest reported suspension marks the second time that US President Donald Trump’s administration has withheld munitions from Kiev since he entered office in January.

Kiev has repeatedly voiced frustration over what it sees as dwindling US support from Washington.

Vladimir Zelensky met with US President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague last week, to demand more Patriot air defense systems but received no firm promises. Trump said the systems were “very hard to get” and that the US needed them for its own defense and for Israel.

Russia has consistently condemned Western arm shipments to Ukraine, arguing that they only serve to prolong hostilities and lead to more bloodshed without affecting the inevitable outcome of the conflict.

Karol Nawrocki has said that under current conditions Kiev should not be in NATO either

Ukraine must meet specific conditions before joining the European Union and cannot currently become a NATO member, Polish President-elect Karol Nawrocki said in an interview with national media on Monday.

Nawrocki restated his stance on Kiev’s membership aspirations on Polsat News channel, as he prepares to take over presidential duties in early August. He confirmed that he intends to meet with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky after his inauguration.

“I am against Ukraine’s unconditional accession to the European Union,” Nawrocki said. It made strategic sense for Ukraine to join the 27-strong bloc, he said, but stressed that such a partnership must be grounded in equality.

Nawrocki recalled that Poland itself had to spend years meeting the EU’s entry requirements.

He mentioned friction between the two nations regarding Ukraine’s access to the Polish agricultural market and Kiev’s glorification of historical figures responsible for atrocities against Poles during World War II.

“Today, there is no possibility for Ukraine to join NATO,” Nawrocki added. He argued that Ukraine’s active conflict with Russia means that all NATO countries would be dragged in, in such a case.

Russia has long cited NATO’s pledge to admit Ukraine, first formally declared in 2008, as a core threat to its national security. Moscow has said deepening NATO-Ukraine ties since the 2014 coup in Kiev were a key factor underlying the current conflict.

The EU, originally established for economic integration, is increasingly seen in Moscow as a hostile military power in its own right. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently described it as “essentially a branch, or rather an appendage of NATO.”

Brussels has advocated a rapid military buildup across EU member states, projecting hundreds of billions of euros in defense spending as a deterrent to Moscow. Russian officials have dismissed these efforts as fear-based tactics meant to divert funding from social programs.

This is what ‘America first’ looks like, envoy to NATO Matthew Whitaker says

The US is suspending its supply of weapons to Ukraine as part of its “America first” policy, Washington's envoy to NATO Matthew Whitaker has told Fox Business. America needs to make sure it has enough air defense systems in its own arsenal before anything else, he stated.

Several Western news media outlets, including Politico and NBC News, reported this week that the Pentagon had halted shipments of several categories of US-made weapons to Kiev.

The list reportedly included dozens of Patriot missile interceptors, Stinger and AIM air-to-air missiles, hundreds of Hellfire and GMLRS systems, as well as thousands of 155mm artillery shells.

The decision allegedly followed an internal review of American weapons reserves ordered by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“This is what ‘America first’ looks like. We first have to take care about the United States’ needs,” Whitaker told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday. The Pentagon needs to “make sure that the US has the strategic defense capabilities necessary to project power,” he said, adding that this is what Washington and its NATO allies want.

“We have to make sure that we have enough Patriot missiles and we have enough air defense and all the things that we need to ensure our own success on the battlefield,” the envoy stated.

The weapons in question had been funded under the administration of former US President Joe Biden administration through two mechanisms: direct drawdowns from existing US military stockpiles and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which contracts new production from defense contractors. The Trump administration has not requested any additional aid for Kiev.

US President Donald Trump had previously questioned the rationale behind endless aid to Ukraine. He also made no specific promises to Kiev at a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague last week.

Hegseth said last month that the White House is reducing military funding for Kiev as part of its “America First” strategy, in the hopes of achieving a diplomatic settlement. Kiev has repeatedly voiced frustration over what it sees as dwindling support from Washington.

Government agencies should not deal with “illegal entities,” Marina Akhmedova has said

Ethnic diaspora organizations should be banned in Russia, Marina Akhmedova, a member of the presidential human rights сouncil, has said amid a flare-up with neighboring Azerbaijan.

Tensions between Moscow and Baku spiked after police raids last week on an alleged organized crime group in the Russian city of Ekaterinburg. The group is composed of Russian nationals of Azerbaijani origin and is accused of a string of gang assassinations and contract killings dating back to the early 2000s.

Two elderly male suspects died during the police operation, with the preliminary assessment indicating that at least one of them suffered heart failure. The incident sparked outrage in Baku, which accused Moscow of deliberately targeting people of Azerbaijani descent and claimed that the two men had been murdered while in custody.

On Tuesday, the head of the Azerbaijani diaspora in Ekaterinburg, Shakhin Shikhlinski, was detained in relation to the case but was swiftly released after questioning, according to his son.

Akhmedova reacted to the development in a post on Telegram on Wednesday, saying “it is time to abolish diasporas” in Russia.

“These are illegal entities. No government agency should have anything to do with them,” she wrote.

All such organizations must be prohibited, not only the Azerbaijani diaspora, the human rights expert insisted.

According to the results of a 2002 census, more than 621,040 people of Azerbaijani descent are currently living in Russia.

On Monday, Azerbaijani police raided the offices of Sputnik Azerbaijan, with a court in Baku ordering a four-month pre-trial detention of two Russian journalists who hold senior positions in the news agency. The Azerbaijani authorities claimed that the outlet has been operating “through illegal financing” – allegations which Sputnik has dismissed as “absurd.”

Baku has also arrested eight other Russian nationals, accusing them of being members of a group involved in cybercrime and the trafficking of drugs from Iran. Russian media, however, have identified two of the suspects as IT specialists, while describing another one as a tourist.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharov said on Wednesday that the Azerbaijani authorities have not yet provided Moscow’s consular staff with access to the detained Russians.

She advised Russian citizens who are planning trips to Azerbaijan to “take the current situation into account.”

Zakharova also noted that there is a “strategic partnership” between Moscow and Baku, urging Azerbaijan to take steps aimed at returning bilateral ties to the proper level.