What have we learned from Kirill Dmitriev’s latest round of talks in Miami, and where does Ukraine stand now?

Two weeks of war in the Persian Gulf have forced the US to admit the obvious: that Russia is an indispensable oil supplier. After some lightning-fast diplomacy from Moscow, Russian oil is reaching its old markets again, and nobody is angrier than Vladimir Zelensky.

The impact of the US-Israeli war on Iran on global energy markets has been brutal. Around 40% of the world’s oil comes from the Middle East, where Iranian attacks have forced the shutdown of refineries in US-allied countries, and a third of the world’s seaborne crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz, which has been de facto closed for nearly two weeks.

As a result, the Brent oil benchmark has soared to more than $103 per barrel, a figure last seen in June 2022, when oil markets grappled with the escalating conflict in Ukraine.

That Moscow would benefit from this situation was inevitable. Russia is the world’s largest oil producer, is not participating in the war in the Gulf, and does not depend on the Strait of Hormuz to bring its oil to buyers. The only impediment to Russian oil flows are Western sanctions, which the US proved this week it is willing to wave away with the stroke of a pen.

Did Dmitriev’s diplomacy lift sanctions on Russian oil?

It took only four days for US sanctions on Russia’s energy sector to start to fade. The process began with a phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday. The Kremlin described the call as “frank and businesslike,” noting that the two leaders discussed the effect of the war on “global energy markets.”

Earlier that day, Putin publicly declared that Russia is a “reliable energy supplier,” willing to work with “countries that themselves are reliable partners.”

Two days later, Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev was on a plane to Miami, where he met with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, as well as White House adviser ⁠Josh Gruenbaum. Neither side revealed much about the meeting, with Witkoff stating that “the teams discussed a variety of topics and agreed to stay in touch,” with Dmitriev thanking the Americans “for a productive meeting.”

Less than 24 hours later, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the temporary lifting of sanctions on Russian oil currently at sea. The waiver relates to exports of Russian oil loaded onto vessels prior to March 12 and is set to last 30 days. Neither side has suggested that the decision to waive sanctions was made in Miami, but it is unlikely that the issue was not discussed.

Is the US sanctions waiver a big deal?

Bessent described the waiver as a “narrowly tailored, short-term measure” that would “not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government, which derives the majority of its energy revenue from taxes assessed at the point of extraction.”

However, Dmitriev believes that further easing of sanctions will follow. In a post on Telegram on Thursday, he said “many countries, particularly the USA, are beginning to better understand the key, systemically important role of Russian oil and gas in ensuring the stability of the global economy, as well as the ineffectiveness and destructive nature of sanctions against Russia.”

A Harvard-educated former investment banker, Dmitriev is a long-time proponent of increasing economic ties between the US and Russia. Throughout repeated rounds of talks aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict, Dmitriev has accompanied Moscow’s negotiators to the US and held separate economic-focused talks with the Americans.

$100 oil is “just the beginning of the largest energy crisis ever,” Dmitriev wrote on X, adding that “even $200+ is a possibility in a prolonged conflict.”

“Amid the growing energy crisis, further easing of restrictions on Russian energy sources appears increasingly inevitable, despite resistance from some in the Brussels bureaucracy,” he predicted.

Did someone forget to ask Zelensky?

The war on Iran has been an unmitigated nightmare for Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. Not only has the conflict denied him the constant press coverage that he enjoyed since 2022, he has also been forced to watch as American weapons – particularly the PAC-3 Patriot anti-air missiles he has spent years demanding from the West – are burned up in the Middle East.

In less than two weeks of fighting in the Persian Gulf, the US, Israel, and their Arab partners have used more PAC-3 interceptors than Ukraine has received in the last four years. In talks with his European backers earlier this week, Ukraine managed to secure a meager 35 of these missiles. The US and its partners have fired this many interceptors every five hours since the war on Iran began.

Zelensky’s attempts to insert Ukraine into the war have also proven fruitless. Despite offering to deploy anti-drone “experts” to the Middle East, the Ukrainian leader was told on Friday by Trump that “we don’t need Ukraine’s help with drone defense.”

Before Bessent announced the waiving of sanctions, Zelensky took to social media to vent his frustrations. “Europe, the United States, and the entire civilized world imposed sanctions on Russia for its aggression,” he wrote on X on Wednesday. “In my view, if these sanctions are lifted, it means we are recognizing the legitimacy of this aggression… I consider this absolutely unjust.”

With Witkoff, Kushner, and the entire Trump administration consumed with Iran, trilateral talks between Moscow, Kiev, and Washington have been postponed until next week at the earliest. For now, Zelensky – the spurned mistress in this story – can only complain to the Europeans.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have all condemned Trump’s sanctions waiver. “We believe that easing sanctions now, for whatever reason, is the wrong thing to do,” Merz told reporters on Friday. “Russia,” von der Leyen said, should absolutely not benefit from the war on Iran.”

However, Russia will continue to benefit as long as oil prices remain high, and Dmitriev has warned European “warmongers” that “energy markets will punish them” as long as they maintain their embargo on Russian oil and gas.

Russian energy is indispensable to easing the world’s largest energy crisis.

EU bureaucrats will soon be forced to recognize this reality, acknowledge their strategic blunders, and atone. https://t.co/5kn6RTZBb3

— Kirill Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) March 13, 2026

The bottom line

Zelensky is learning the hard way that Trump is far more interested in reassuring markets than reassuring Kiev, and that when push comes to shove, the US president will always prioritize his interests and those of Israel over Ukraine’s. As small a breakthrough as a sanctions waiver is, the hostile reaction from the EU shows that the bloc is still willing to commit economic seppuku for the sake of ideology.

Under Trump, the US does not care about ideology, and will work with Russia if doing so is in its interest. Zelensky, meanwhile, can only join the Europeans in impotent rage.

The continued US-Israeli attack on the country with a population of 90 million could lead to a mass exodus, a research study has warned

Most Iranians fleeing the war, should the US and Israel choose to continue their aggression, would likely head for Germany, a Berlin-based research institute has predicted.

The continued unrest in the country with a population of over 90 million has sparked concerns of mass migration flows to the EU.

On Friday, the newspaper Munchner Merkur cited a recent study by the Rockwool Foundation Berlin (RF) concluding that 28% of potential Iranian war refugees would view Germany as their top destination. Additionally, 14% of Lebanese migrants would also likely seek protection in the EU nation. The report draws on the findings of a 2024 Gallup representative survey.

The publication quoted RF Berlin director and report co-author Christian Dustmann as pointing out that Germany already has numerous Iranian and Lebanese diasporas, which could make the country more attractive to potential newcomers.

Moreover, with countries like Canada and the US being geographically harder to reach, it is likely that “Europe – and Germany in particular – will become the primary destination for potential refugee movements,” the researcher said, as quoted by Merkur.

Also on Friday, Politico reported that the European Union is bracing itself for a wave of refugees fleeing the war in Iran.

Nicholas Ioannides, the deputy migration minister of Cyprus, told the outlet that the bloc “cannot overlook the possibility of a new refugee crisis.”

A report penned by the bloc’s Agency for Asylum before the start of the war warned that “even partial destabilization [in Iran] could generate refugee movements of an unprecedented magnitude,” Politico said.

In 2015, at the height of the Syrian civil war, the bloc took in more than a million refugees. The migrant influx has caused internal frictions in many member states, including Germany, with critics of the open-door policy citing a rise in crime, terrorist threats, and migrants’ failure to integrate.

Politico quoted Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell as saying that “we are still seeing the consequences of what happened 10 years ago,” with a repeat “not an option” for the EU.

Contacts with the Trump administration come as nationwide blackouts deepen following Washington’s oil restrictions and the Iran war

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has confirmed that officials in Havana are holding talks with the administration of US President Donald Trump, as the island grapples with a deepening energy crisis and widespread blackouts.

The contacts come amid mounting economic pressure on the Caribbean nation, with Cuban authorities blaming American sanctions and restrictions on fuel supplies for crippling the country’s power generation. The Iran conflict and the resulting spike in global oil prices have further aggravated the situation. Crude briefly topped $110 a barrel this month, the highest level since the pandemic.

Speaking in a televised address on Friday, Diaz-Canel said the contacts were “aimed at finding solutions through dialogue.” He did not specify when or where the talks were taking place, or which officials were involved.

The announcement marks the first time in more than a decade that Havana has publicly acknowledged formal discussions with Washington. It follows weeks of power cuts, fuel shortages, and growing public anger after the halt of Venezuelan oil shipments in the wake of the US seizure of President Nicolas Maduro and as Washington stepped up efforts to block other suppliers. Trump has repeatedly threatened a “total oil blockade” of Cuba and warned that countries selling crude to the island could face tariffs.

No petroleum shipments have reached the island in the past three months, Diaz-Canel said, adding that tens of thousands of people, including children, are unable to undergo surgery because of the blockade.

Last week, Trump said Cuba “is gonna fall pretty soon.” He previously suggested the US could carry out a “friendly takeover of Cuba,” but also added that it might not be friendly.

Diaz-Canel said Havana was entering the dialogue “without renouncing our principles or sovereignty,” and rejected claims his government is close to collapse, while admitting that Cuba is facing one of the worst economic and energy crises in its recent history.

The Cuban government has long blamed its economic woes on decades of US sanctions, saying they have strangled growth and limited access to global markets. To cover its energy needs, Havana has increasingly depended on oil deliveries from Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela.

Moscow has condemned Washington’s blockade of the island, warning that sanctions and other coercive measures breach international law and threaten stability. Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak said Russia is considering fuel aid to help ease Cuba’s energy emergency.

The tourism and finance-focused jewel of a key US ally has seen its dearly-bought reputation go up in smoke

Dubai, the city of clean, safe streets, discreet banks, abundant air travel options and red carpets rolled out for the rich, is watching its reputation unravel under the weight of foreign military ambitions.

The most populous city of the United Arab Emirates is paying the price of the US-Israeli war on Iran, along with the rest of the Middle East. The attackers want Tehran’s government toppled. The defenders hope to make that goal so costly even the Americans can’t afford it.

Meanwhile, Arab nations that welcomed US military bases for their own security are seeing the limits of that protection – and expats living in Dubai have been among the hardest hit, at least emotionally.

⚡️ Attack on Dubai: Explosions near Burj Khalifa

An Iranian missile landed in a prestigious area on the artificial Palm Jumeirah island.

The area is home to luxurious hotels popular with Russian tourists. One of them caught fire. pic.twitter.com/GPEGtiUE2O

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) February 28, 2026

A millionaire’s refuge in the Middle East

Dubai has cultivated a reputation as the Arab world’s most cosmopolitan city – a direct result of decades of strategic effort by UAE leadership. Have money to spend? Come as a tourist, and the world is your oyster. Have money to invest? Even better – just remember local partnerships are mandatory outside certain zones. Either way, enjoy safety and hospitality, leave your culture-war baggage at the door.

That appeal helped Dubai’s population double from two million in 2011 to four million last August. Among its 90% foreign-born residents were an estimated 81,200 millionaires and 20 billionaires.

Dubai International Financial Centre has been hit by drone attack pic.twitter.com/81ydE5RkrS

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) March 13, 2026

Exodus of expats

The regional war triggered an exodus of those who could afford it. Tens of thousands reportedly fled Dubai in the first week of hostilities, even as the cost of evacuating a family of four by private jet reached $250,000, according to The Financial Times.

The flights included both stranded tourists and members of Dubai’s extensive expat community. International corporations told Gulf-based employees to work remotely. Bloomberg, which has regional headquarters in Dubai, allowed staff to temporarily relocate and work from outside the Middle East.

Whether this outflow is temporary or something more lasting remains to be seen. But stock traders appear pessimistic: Dubai’s Real Estate and Construction Index (DFMRE) has plunged 30% in the past two weeks.

Dubai International Financial Centre has been hit by a drone attack this morning. Apologies are in order. Iran promised and delivered. If you still have money in the UAE, you are going to lose a lot of it. Now your bank will restrict withdrawals and that's just a start. Get out… pic.twitter.com/eEhw3zVo9f

— MENA Unleashed (@MENAUnleashed) March 13, 2026

End of the Dubai dream?

For many, the future looks bleak. “We are thinking to go to a different country now. Everybody knows that Dubai is finished,” a Pakistan-born taxi driver told The Guardian after his car was destroyed in a missile attack. “There is no business, we are earning nothing since this war, and I don’t see the tourism coming back.”

Westerners chasing the “Dubai dream” found their usual liberties curtailed. Influencers who helped craft the city’s glamorous image were told to keep cameras off and mouths shut when witnessing buzzing drones or streaking interceptors. Harming “public order” or “national unity” with unwanted content can bring fines and jail time, the authorities warned.

The most prized demographic – millionaires – had their own reasons for concern. Some were prevented from moving money to Singapore in the early days of the escalation due to “technological glitches,” Reuters reported.

Things can get worse

After two weeks, Dubai may be bruised but hardly “finished.” Yet the risk of long-term damage is compounding. Strikes on data centers operated by Amazon Web Services (AWS) in the UAE and Bahrain – framed by Tehran as aimed at harming US AI-enhanced intelligence activities – also threatened the backbone of the region’s digital economy.

And there is the shadow of a genuine humanitarian disaster: disruption of food imports due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or damage to desalination plants could make physical survival uncertain. However unlikely, such uncertainties leave real reputational scars.

The bloc’s economic situation was dire even before the shocks of the Iran war, and yet it doubles down on supporting the US and Israel

Some observers of the current EU ‘elites’, including this author, used to believe that their defining feature – apart from things such as complicity in genocide and wars of aggression with Israel and the US, bigoted xenophobia about Russia and China, and, of course, pervasive corruption – was an absolute inability to learn.

We must admit, we stand corrected: Those running the EU are able to learn. The real problem is their relentless compulsion to learn the wrong thing. We are not dealing with non-learners but anti-learners: where others progress from experience, they regress.

Case in point, their response to the fact that their US-Israeli masters have started a war to end if not strictly all then at least all (barely) affordable energy supplies to the EU’s economies, while its major players are already limping along on a spectrum between walking-wounded (for instance, France, maybe) to comatose (Germany, definitely).

In Germany, still the largest single economy inside the EU, providing almost a fourth of the bloc’s total GDP, industrial demand – orders from factories – fell by over 11% in January. Such a decrease – really, collapse – in orders is “drastic,” as German Manager Magazine notes. According to the Financial Times, this “very weak” start into the new year, puts preceding – and very modest – signs of a recovery from years of stagnation in doubt. Indeed. And all of that disappointing data was gathered before the fallout of the Iran war had even started.

Regarding the latter, it will be severe. Even Berlin’s Ministry of Economics admits that the risks stemming from the war’s consequences, most of them still incoming, is substantial.

In general, the Eurozone – different from but covering most of the EU – is not in good shape either. According to Bloomberg, a very low and yet still over-optimistic Eurostat estimate of expansion by 0.3% for the last quarter of 2025 has just been revised downward to 0.2%. But frankly, who cares at that level of misery?

And for the Eurozone as well, America and Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran is likely to make things much worse. Philip Lane, chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), has confirmed that much to the Financial Times: An enduring decrease in oil and gas supplies from the Middle East can (read: will), he warns, bring about a “substantial spike” in inflation and a “sharp drop in output.”

And what is the EU leadership’s response to this deeply depressing outlook for its economy and the European citizens depending on it? Let’s not dream. It is true, if the EU’s ‘elites’ were in the business of protecting European interests and prosperity, they would, obviously, take a sharp turn against both the US and Israel (as well as London in case it were to stick to its special-poodle relationship with Washington).

Yet if the EU leadership had such priorities, it would long have turned against the US, for its blatant exploitation of its vassal regimes via, first, NATO over-expansion and, now, crippling overspending, for Ukraine proxy war outsourcing, and for devastating tariff warfare. It would also long have broken with Israel, for, to name only two compelling reasons, its genocide and serial wars of aggression that are both horrifically criminal and extremely destabilizing and damaging not “only” to the Middle East but the world as a whole and Europe in particular.

In short, the EU would not even be in the mess it is now if it actually took care of Europe. And, by the way, if it were not so craven but had opposed the US and Israel instead of pandering to them, perhaps it could even have contributed to preventing the current criminal war against Iran.

That, however, would not be the EU as it really is. In sordid reality, it is a second iteration of NATO, that is, an instrument of the US empire (notwithstanding showy and silly Greenland hysterics) and of international oligarchic structures. Ordinary Europeans matter only in so far as they are expected to vote – and think and speak – in line with EU ‘elite’ priorities, and when they do not, they are made to.

No wonder then that the utterly unelected and legally extremely challenged EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen – really, the EU’s despot and US viceroy rolled into one – demonstratively does not give a damn about the massive energy price shock that has already started hitting the fragile economies of EU-Europe.

With tanker ships on fire off the Strait of Hormuz, oil surging over $100 per barrel, national reserves being dipped into, gas prices up by 50% in the EU, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil markets suffering “the largest supply disruption in history,” von der Leyen has had nothing to offer but reverting to the tired – and less than successful – playbook of 2022, originally put together when the Western-Russian proxy war via Ukraine escalated. Tinkering, again, with ineffective price caps, taxes and fees, electricity market structures and price distortions, renewables, and wasting money on subsidies (out of budgets that are already vastly overstretched) – that was about it. No wonder, several national governments have already signaled their impatience with what, in essence, is inactivity and non-strategy.

At least as important, though, was what von der Leyen took pains to rule out: Returning to Russian supplies would be a “strategic blunder,” the EU’s one-woman decider-in-chief declared. Instead, she insists, the EU must stay the course and continue ridding itself of the last remnants of Russian gas and oil. Clearly, von der Leyen is anxious that not everyone in the EU’s ‘elites’ is up to her level of ideological obstinacy and economic as well as geopolitical irrationality. “Some,” she chided, “argue that we should abandon our long-term strategy and even go back to Russian fossil fuels.” Perish the thought! As long as von der Leyen and her type run the EU, it will ruin itself before doing the obvious – making peace with Russia and rebuilding economic ties, including in the energy sector.

And there you have it: This is a leadership style not simply refusing to learn from experience but repeating the worst blunders of the past. The von der Leyen way of policy making – from sanctions (now on round 20, I believe) to pipelines – is akin to negative natural selection: Whatever does not work will be done again, and again, and again. The real question, it seems, is not if the EU “elites” will ever stop being perverse anti-learners, but whether – or when – they will lose control. Mismanaging the massive shock that the US and Israel have sent their way now may finally provoke enough backlash from below to send the von der Leyens packing. For Europe’s sake, let’s hope for the best, even if it’s delivered by the worst.

At least 23 Russian civilians have been killed in Ukrainian strikes, some using Western-supplied Storm Shadow missiles

Ukraine has launched a series of deadly attacks on Russian territory, using  Western-supplied weapons and targeting data from its backers while the world’s attention has remained fixed on the escalating war in Iran.

At least 23 civilians have been killed and 85 injured by Ukrainian attacks on Russia since February 28, the day the US and Israel began bombing Iran.

RT has been closely monitoring these developments, documenting a pattern of strikes that have targeted civilians and infrastructure across Russian regions.

What attacks has Ukraine carried out on Russian civilains?

The deadliest attack took place on Tuesday 10 March, when Ukrainian drones struck a hospital in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), killing ten medical personnel. Another ten people, including nine staff, were injured.

On the same day the Ukrainian military used a UK-supplied Storm Shadow missile to attack the city of Bryansk, about 100 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, killing at least seven civilians and wounding at least 42 people. Using such a weapon is impossible without the direct involvement of British military specialists.

On March 8, International Women's Day and a public holiday in Russia, a family of four, including a six-year-old boy, were killed and twelve others injured by a wave of Ukrainian strikes on the DPR.

On March 6, two people were killed when Ukrainian drone dropped explosives on civilians outside a grocery store in Russia's Kherson Region. A drone raid on the city of Novorossiysk in southern Russia on March 4 injured seven and caused extensive damage, including to kindergartens.

The DPR, along with the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), seceded from Ukraine following a Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. The two territories, along with Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region, joined Russia following referendums in September 2022.

Civilians in Russia's border regions have been consistently targeted by Ukrainian drones throughout the conflict, with Moscow accusing Kiev of “terrorism.”

Moscow has insisted that Kiev is attacking civilians because it cannot halt Russian advances on the battlefield. Ukrainian officials claim that inflicting sufficient economic damage will force the Kremlin to abandon its objectives in the four-year conflict.

Beyond civilian casualties, Ukraine has also been attacking energy infrastructure. Pipeline operator Gazprom reported on Wednesday that some of its compressor stations, including one serving the TurkStream pipeline, had been hit. The Russian Defense Ministry has accused Kiev of seeking to disrupt deliveries to European consumers.

The Foreign Ministry has sent for the diplomats to submit a “strong protest” following an attack on Bryansk

The Foreign Ministry in Moscow has summoned the envoys of France and Britain to submit a “strong protest” over the deadly strike on the Russian city of Bryansk.

The Ukrainian military launched the attack on Tuesday, striking the city with long-range Storm Shadow cruise missiles manufactured by the Franco-British corporation MBDA. The assault left at least eight people dead and dozens more wounded.

The ministry said it told the envoys that London and Paris “bear direct responsibility for this terrorist attack” and  emphasized that the strike on Bryansk “would have been impossible without the participation of British and French specialists” in its staging.

“It was underscored that if London and Paris continue to be complicit in the war crimes of the Kiev regime, responsibility for the destructive consequences of the armed conflict and the escalation of tensions will fall on Britain and France,” the ministry stressed.

Ukraine has acknowledged responsibility for the strike, claiming it was targeting a local microelectronics factory. The attack reportedly came during a shift change at the facility, when some employees were heading to the exit. Some of the missiles used apparently missed the plant and landed in the city’s streets, damaging shopping stands, civilian vehicles and residential buildings.

Kiev has seemingly ramped up strikes on Russia in recent days while global attention remains diverted from the Ukraine conflict amid the US-Israeli war on Iran. 
Ukrainian forces have staged several large-scale attacks on civilian sites in Russia, as well as repeatedly targeted the country’s energy infrastructure.

The Tuesday attack on a hospital in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic became the deadliest incident in the ongoing string of strikes. It left ten medical personnel dead, while ten other people, including nine staff, were injured.

The statement by Colombian President Gustavo Petro comes after Washington kidnapped Venezuela’s leader and threatened Cuba

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has cautioned the US administration against trying to build “an empire” in Latin America, urging Washington to pursue dialogue rather than military intervention.

Petro’s remarks came after the US intervened in Venezuela in January, when US forces seized President Nicolas Maduro in a raid in Caracas, and amid repeated warnings from Washington about possible “regime change” in Cuba.

Latin America is not a “land to be conquered,” the Colombian president said in an interview with Politico published on Thursday. “I believe that there are people in the US government who think similarly: that instead of imposing an empire from which Cubans always liberate themselves, what is ultimately needed is to establish a dialogue between the Americas and include Cuba in the world of fiber optics and clean energy,” Petro said.

The head of state also leveled criticism at US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and former Trump adviser and billionaire Elon Musk. He accused both of promoting a vision of a “white, Christian, Western civilization” and warned against trying to revive “the age of the Crusades,” saying such rhetoric could generate an “enormous level of violence within each society.”

Beyond Venezuela, Washington has expanded military operations in the region under the banner of fighting drug cartels. US forces have carried out operations in Ecuador and threatened similar action in Mexico, while also launching numerous strikes on vessels suspected of narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Despite the tensions, Bogota has continued to coordinate with Washington on counter-narcotics efforts. Earlier this year, the Columbian Interior Ministry said the two countries had agreed to take “joint action” against cocaine-smuggling guerrilla groups operating along the border with Venezuela.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said reports of increased US pressure on Cuba were “deeply alarming,” especially following the seizure of Maduro. The ministry said such actions represent an unacceptable infringement of state sovereignty. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, said the capture of Maduro was a “gross violation of international law” and reiterated Moscow’s call for his release.

Tehran’s warning to Brussels exposes a growing rift inside the bloc

The EU is facing a dilemma that could define its role in the escalating confrontation with Iran. Supporting Washington’s military campaign may strengthen transatlantic unity, but it also risks dragging the continent into a conflict that could trigger severe economic and energy consequences for the bloc.

Tehran has made this risk explicit. Majid Takht-Ravanchi, political deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, recently stated that Europe could become a legitimate military target if it aids the US and Israel in their aggression against the Islamic Republic. In an interview with France 24, he emphasized that any logistical or military support European nations provide to American operations would lead Tehran to view them as participants in the conflict, with all the associated consequences.

Essentially, Tehran is signaling to European countries that if they choose to side with Washington and West Jerusalem, they should not expect any special diplomatic treatment. Iran has made it clear: those who assist an aggressor become part of the aggression.

NATO solidarity – and European hesitation

This reaction from Tehran came on the heels of remarks made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Just days after the start of the US military operation against Iran, Rutte declared that Europe fully supports US actions and labeled Iran a threat to Europe, Israel, and neighboring regions. However, he added that NATO has no plans to engage in military operations against Iran. This underscores a delicate nuance: Rutte essentially spoke on behalf of all of Europe and NATO, despite significant internal disagreements within the bloc. 

For example, Norway, while a NATO member, has distanced itself from Washington’s policies. Oslo openly stated its disapproval of US President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran, characterizing the strikes on the country as violations of international law. Such rhetoric is quite severe for an ally within NATO.

Similar sentiments have emerged from Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares asserted that Spanish military bases are not being used for US and Israeli operations against Iran, signaling Madrid’s desire to avoid being drawn into the conflict. Washington’s response was swift and sharp. Donald Trump said that if the US could not use Spanish bases for operations against Iran, it might reconsider trade agreements with Spain and impose sanctions.

The situation escalated further when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Spain had agreed to assist the US. The Spanish government quickly countered this claim, clarifying that no such agreement had been reached. Consequently, Madrid publicly accused the American administration of dishonesty, which undoubtedly dealt another blow to Washington’s reputation in Europe.

The positions of France and the UK remain notably ambiguous. On the one hand, these countries have a long-standing tradition of demonstrating solidarity with the United States. On the other hand, both clearly recognize that the conflict surrounding Iran could lead to serious political and economic repercussions for Europe. As a result, their rhetoric remains cautious and ambiguous. 

Germany remains the only major European nation that openly supports the US. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz happened to be visiting the White House when the US launched its operation against Iran. Just days later, he managed to shift the blame for aggression against Iran onto… Iran itself. According to him, Tehran is responsible for the ongoing conflict. Merz even stated,

“The sooner the mullah regime stops, the sooner this war will end.”

He echoed a familiar Western narrative, branding Iran as a “center of international terrorism” that must be eliminated, and said the United States and Israel are undertaking this task “by their own methods.” This stance effectively legitimizes military action against Iran. It’s unlikely we can expect any neutrality from Berlin; Germany will always side with Israel due to its ‘historical memory’, thereby endorsing aggression against Iran.

A similar tone was struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. She remarked that there “should be no tears shed for such a regime,” emphasizing, like Merz, that Tehran bears responsibility for destabilizing the Middle East. Her overtly cynical rhetoric sparked a significant debate within the EU. European Commissioner for Competition Teresa Ribera publicly distanced herself from von der Leyen’s remarks, calling them unfortunate. In European political circles, von der Leyen faced accusations of overstepping authority, as her statements on such a sensitive foreign policy issue did not accurately reflect the stance of all EU member states.

The backlash following von der Leyen’s comments highlighted a clear problem within the EU: a lack of consensus on the Iranian issue. The irony of the situation is that the demonstrative loyalty of European politicians seems largely aimed at demonstrating political unity with Trump. However, Trump has repeatedly shown disdain for European allies, treating them as subordinate partners. Still, some segments of the European elite appear hopeful that backing the US on this issue will strengthen their standing with Washington.

Europe’s growing energy anxiety

It’s not like some European nations have suddenly come to support Iran; rather, it reflects more pragmatic concerns. European governments are acutely aware that a significant escalation around Iran could prove very costly for Europe, both politically and economically.

The EU’s primary concern is energy. For decades, Russia provided Europe with stable energy security. However, following the conflict in Ukraine, European countries began to turn away from Russian resources, driven largely by US pressure. They sought alternatives, attempting to redirect their energy supplies from Middle Eastern nations. While some European states managed to import limited amounts of oil from Iran, the main suppliers remained Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Now, the situation has shifted dramatically. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for much of the world’s oil trade from the Gulf states, has effectively been blocked by Iran. This narrow maritime corridor is essential for transporting oil both to Europe and Asian countries. When logistics through the Strait of Hormuz are severely disrupted, it automatically creates significant problems with oil and gas supplies to European markets. In this light, Europe is beginning to realize just how vulnerable its position has become. 

Essentially, European countries have trapped themselves in an energy deadlock. First, they voluntarily (or rather, under Washington’s influence) turned away from Russian energy resources. Then they placed their bets on the Middle East, counting on the region’s stability. But now, the conflict involving Iran jeopardizes that energy source as well. This growing tension is causing increasing anxiety in Europe. Many European elites are starting to understand that further escalation could lead not just to a military crisis but also to a profound energy and economic crisis in the EU.

The limits of European “strategic autonomy”

It’s worth noting that the events surrounding Iran have highlighted a consistent feature of European policy: its amorphous nature and inability to act as an independent mediator in international conflicts. European nations often tout their diplomatic roles, proclaiming “strategic autonomy” and asserting their capacity to be a separate center of power. Yet, time and again, they find themselves unable to assert their own agenda at critical moments.

In this context, we may recall the so-called ‘nuclear deal’ – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). France, the UK, and Germany (the “E3” nations) along with the European Union as an institution acted as intermediaries between Iran and the United States during negotiations for this agreement. The terms were straightforward: Iran would limit its nuclear program and abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons, while the US and other Western nations would lift sanctions and reintegrate Tehran into the global economy.

As part of the deal, Europe took on the role of a guarantor. It was expected that it would ensure compliance with the agreements and maintain balance between Washington and Tehran. However, reality was different .When Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reinstated sanctions against Iran, Europe proved incapable of protecting either the agreement or its own reputation as a credible mediator.

It’s been over a decade since the agreement was signed, and it’s now clear that European diplomacy has largely failed. European leaders have talked about the need to uphold the deal, made countless statements, and even established financial mechanisms aimed at circumventing American sanctions. Yet, all of this turned out to be little more than political posturing. In practice, European companies quickly scaled back their dealings with Iran, fearing pressure from the US.

The root of this failure lies in the lack of political courage among European nations to engage with Washington on an equal footing. Formally, Europe tries to position itself as an independent center of power, but in reality, its dependence on the US remains so high that any attempts at pursuing an independent policy inevitably lead to concessions. Trump understands this perfectly well. He has repeatedly shown that he does not view European allies as equal partners. In his political logic, Europe is a dependent ally that will ultimately conform to American directives. This is why Trump feels free to speak to European leaders with such bluntness and evident disregard.

This same mindset extends to NATO. Trump has made it clear that without US funding, the bloc simply wouldn’t exist. Essentially, Trump has openly stated that NATO relies heavily on American resources. There’s a significant truth to this: in most European countries, military budgets have remained relatively modest for years, and NATO’s key capabilities are ensured by US funding. Therefore, the statements of European politicians about unity and resolve within the bloc come off as a joke and have nothing to do with real military readiness. 

A telling incident occurred when debris from an Iranian ballistic missile landed in Türkiye. Almost immediately, accusations emerged claiming Iran had intentionally targeted Turkish territory. However, Tehran quickly denied any intention to attack Türkiye. Logically, the idea seems absurd: Türkiye is not an enemy of Iran, and there are no reasons for Tehran to strike it. Türkiye expressed discontent, but its response was measured. Ankara urged its “Iranian friends” to monitor missile launches more carefully. Iran responded by insisting that it had no plans to attack Türkiye or consider it a target.

NATO Secretary General Rutte condemned the incident but simultaneously stated that Article 5 of NATO (concerning collective defense) would not be invoked. In other words, even if a missile or its debris strikes the territory of a NATO member, it doesn’t automatically trigger the mechanisms for collective defense. In effect, this means that the alliance is unwilling to enter into direct conflict over such incidents, especially when it comes to a country like Türkiye. 

Europe’s strategic dilemma

The situation is further complicated by Iran’s readiness to fight until the end. Iranian strikes have already targeted military facilities in the Gulf countries, including the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. This indicates that the conflict is expanding beyond a bilateral confrontation. European powers are beginning to realize that, depending on how events unfold, these strikes could eventually impact European territories as well. For Iran, the stakes are high: the security and survival of the state are at stake. In this context, Tehran is unlikely to prioritize diplomatic considerations or exercise restraint.

European nations must also consider the activities of various Iran-aligned groups and Iran’s radical supporters. If the conflict continues to escalate, there’s a great risk that such groups may become active in Europe or North America. The Trump administration has already started distancing itself from some of the most controversial incidents, stating that the responsibility for certain operations may be attributed to Israel rather than the US. This appears to be an attempt to redistribute political responsibility for the consequences of the conflict. However, for Iran, such details may not be important; from Tehran’s perspective, both sides should share the blame.

Overall, the unfolding events can be seen as the consequences of a decision that has effectively opened Pandora’s box. Europe may end up paying a particularly high price for this situation. As a result, significant divisions are emerging within the EU. On the one hand, there are countries that are ready to unconditionally back the US, including Baltic states like Estonia and Lithuania – Europe’s political minnows that eagerly support Washington’s policies and earnestly believe they will help the US achieve more rapid success in Iran.

On the other hand, there are those European nations that increasingly question whether participating in someone else’s geopolitical game is worth the cost. Many European politicians have come to recognize that escalating tensions surrounding Iran could lead to serious economic, energy, and political consequences for the entire European continent.

As a result, a deep internal rift is forming in Europe – between those willing to follow Washington at any cost and those starting to contemplate the risks and potential destructiveness of such a policy for Europe.

The paperwork should reflect the person’s “lived gender” rather than their biological sex, the European Court of Justice has decided

EU member states are obliged to amend the data on gender in the identification documents of citizens who have undergone a sex change, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled.

The papers of transgender persons in the bloc must reflect their “lived gender” rather than their biological sex, the Luxembourg-based body said on Thursday.

The CJEU was deciding on a 2017 case referred to it by Bulgaria’s Supreme Court of Cassation. It wanted to clarify if the country was required to make changes to the birth certificate of a Bulgarian man who had begun hormone therapy to start living as a woman after moving to Italy.

The authorities in Sofia had previously rejected the request, citing the fact that Bulgaria’s laws interpret ‘sex’ strictly in biological terms.

The CJEU judges came to the conclusion that the state’s reluctance to amend the transgender citizen’s ID after they exercised their right to live in another EU country can hinder freedom of movement and violate the right to private life.

The bloc’s Charter of Fundamental Rights “protects gender identity and obliges Member States to provide for clear, accessible and effective procedures for the legal recognition of it,” the ruling read.

”Member state legislation which does not permit the amendment of the gender data of one of its nationals who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement is contrary to EU law,” it stressed.

The decision was welcomed by LGBTQ activists, with lawyer Denitsa Lyubenova, who chairs the Deystvie Association, saying that it “opens a door to our community to cite precisely this judgment and take advantage of EU law and be able to travel freely within the EU.”

The ILGA-Europe advocacy group has called upon the European Commission to use the judgment to act against Hungary and Slovakia, which also recognize only two genders – male and female.

Russia, which has taken steps to promote traditional values, banned legal and medical “gender transitions” except in serious medical cases in 2023. Last year, Moscow also outlawed the adoption of children by those living in countries that permit gender-reassignment procedures. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the West is engaged in what he called “gender terrorism.”

Tehran’s ambassador to New Delhi has confirmed access to the key oil chokepoint for Indian ships, citing longstanding ties

Iran’s ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, has indicated that Indian vessels can expect safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz amid the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Responding to a question from an RT India correspondent, the envoy highlighted that Tehran sees New Delhi as a friend and that there are converging interests between the two countries.

Asked directly whether India would receive safe passage through the strait, he replied: “Yes, because India is our friend. You will see it within two or three hours.”

Fathali emphasized that Iran and India share key interests in the region, describing New Delhi as an important partner for Tehran.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, handling a substantial share of global oil and gas shipments.

The disruption to traffic through the narrow waterway since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran has already had immediate implications for energy markets globally, including for India, which relies heavily on crude supplies passing through the region.

Earlier this week, the first India-bound oil tanker sailing under a Liberian flag cleared the Strait of Hormuz and berthed at Mumbai.

The Iranian envoy’s remarks also come hours after top officials of the two countries held telephone talks. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, expressing concern over the “escalation of tensions, the loss of civilian lives, and the damage to civilian infrastructure.”

In a separate conversation, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar spoke to his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi. During the conversation, Tehran outlined its position after US‑Israeli strikes and called for support from BRICS nations, while India emphasized cooperation and regional stability.

A Chinese national detained in Kenya was trying to smuggle insects in his luggage

Authorities in Kenya have arrested a 27‑year‑old Chinese national at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) in the capital Nairobi on Tuesday after a routine security check uncovered over two thousand live garden ants in his luggage.

Prosecutor Allen Mulama told the court that a search recovered 2,238 live ants; 1,948 of them were contained in test tubes and the rest were wrapped in three rolls of soft tissue paper. 

According to filings reviewed by Reuters, immigration officials had flagged a “stop order” on Zhang Kequn’s passport due to his evasion of arrest in Kenya the year before.

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) informed the court that it requires additional time to complete its investigation, including analyzing an iPhone and a MacBook that were seized from Zhang.

Prosecutors reported that Zhang identified three individuals who allegedly supplied him with the ants, though he has not publicly addressed these claims. Authorities also noted that a similar shipment of ants originating from Kenya was intercepted in Bangkok during the same week.

This is not the country’s first ant trafficking case. In 2025, prosecutors fined four men, two Belgian nationals, one Vietnamese, and a Kenyan, $7,700 each for attempting to traffic 5,440 giant African harvester queen ants from Kenya.  

In 2023, three individuals from Kenya attempted to smuggle harvester ants valued at $2,321 to France. Both incidents involved Messor cephalotes, a species indigenous to East Africa that is highly prized in the exotic pet trade for its intricate colony-building abilities and distinctive social behavior.

The KWS stated that the confiscated ants were allegedly destined for exotic pet markets across Europe and Asia. Dealers in the United Kingdom have reportedly valued these smuggled ants at up to $220 each.

Under Kenyan law, wildlife includes indigenous animals and insects, and exporting them requires permits from the KWS.

NATO nations have been building up their military presence in the region, with Russia vowing to protect its national interests there

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a multibillion-dollar plan to increase the country’s military presence in the Arctic.

NATO, of which Canada is a member, has been actively ramping up its military footprint in the strategically important region in recent years, citing a perceived Russian threat. Moscow has dismissed the allegations, saying that the military bloc views the Arctic as a “bridgehead for possible conflicts.” President Vladimir Putin has warned that Russia will respond to the NATO military buildup in the region, where it possesses more than half of the entire coastline.

On Thursday, Carney stated that Canada would invest C$35 billion ($25.7 billion) in “forward operating locations” in the Arctic communities of Yellowknife, Inuvik, and Iqaluit, and several other locations. The plan envisages military airfield upgrades as well as the creation of hangars, ammunition and fuel facilities, among other installations, with a view to enabling the Canadian military to “deploy rapidly and support year-round response” in the region.

According to the prime minister, the new military infrastructure would lessen Canada’s reliance on other NATO member states to project force in the far north.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte previously said member states were “working together” in the Arctic to “defend this part of NATO territory.”

Earlier this month, the Russian ambassador to Norway, Nikolay Korchunov, warned of a NATO “confrontational frenzy” in the region, claiming that the Western military bloc was considering a partial or full naval blockade of Russia.

Last March, President Putin stated that Moscow was “concerned by the fact that NATO countries as a whole are more frequently designating the far north as a bridgehead for possible conflicts, practicing the use of troops in these conditions.”

While “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” it would not tolerate any encroachments on its sovereignty and will “reliably protect” its national interests in the region, Putin said.

The first six days of the conflict in the Middle East have cost Washington at least $11.3 billion, estimates show

The US is rapidly depleting its weapons stockpiles and has “burned through years” of some critical munitions since starting its war against Iran, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.

In a closed‑door briefing on Tuesday, Pentagon officials estimated that the first six days of the US war with Iran have already cost at least $11.3 billion, according to the outlet.

The rapid munitions drain has stoked fears over the soaring cost of the war and Washington’s capacity to restock key weapons, including advanced long-range Tomahawk missiles, the FT said.

The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that US forces fired 168 Tomahawk cruise missile during the first 100 hours of the operation against Iran.

“That’s a huge Tomahawk expenditure. The Navy will feel that for several years,” one source told the outlet, adding that the US is facing a shortfall that is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon.

Tomahawk cruise missiles, the US Navy’s long-range, subsonic strike weapon that carries a 1,000‑pound warhead, cost about $3.6 million each. The US military has bought just 322 over the past five years, including 57 for fiscal 2026 at $206.6 million, enough to replace only a fraction of those likely used in recent operations.

The scale of US spending sharply contrasts with recent assurances from Washington. War Secretary Pete Hegseth told the public earlier this month that “our munitions are full up and our will is iron-clad,” while Trump boasted that the country can fight wars “forever” thanks to “virtually unlimited” weapons supply.

According to the British outlet, the Pentagon is expected to soon submit a request to the White House and Congress for as much as $50 billion in additional military funding.

But any additional funding for the Iran war is likely to face stiff opposition in both chambers. Democratic lawmakers are expected to push back, with many condemning the campaign as unlawful given the absence of congressional authorization, the FT said. 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, signaled resistance to an open-ended request and recalled that the White House had long told Ukraine and its European backers it could not provide more weapons without depleting US stockpiles.

The Middle East escalation has cut off a number of American allies from the vital Strait of Hormuz

Oil producers in the Gulf region have lost an estimated $15.1 billion in energy revenues since the launch of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing estimates by analytics firm Kpler.

The US and Israel conducted coordinated strikes on the Islamic Republic in late February, triggering Iranian retaliatory attacks across the region. The escalating crisis effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz – a critical route that handles roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil and gas supply – as Tehran barred ships from non-friendly nations, sending global crude prices soaring nearly 50% to $120 per barrel.

The Strait of Hormuz is estimated to carry around $1.2 billion worth of crude oil, refined products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) daily, based on average prices and volumes recorded last year. According to Florian Gruenberger of Kpler, as cited by the FT, current flows through the waterway are “negligible” compared with prewar levels.

Among the halted shipments, crude oil reportedly represents the largest share, accounting for 71% of the total value. At least $10.7 billion worth of crude, refined oil products, and LNG cargoes remain stranded inside the maritime route, according to Kpler.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s second biggest oil producer, has reportedly been hardest hit, missing out on $4.5 billion in energy revenues since the start of the conflict, while Iraq, which relies on oil production for 90% of government revenues, is said to be among the most exposed. Other major producers in the region, including the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, have also faced significant losses.

Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, have deferred $13.3 billion in sales and tax revenue due to disruptions in oil shipments, according to UK-based consultancy Wood Mackenzie, as cited by the FT.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump told Fox News that American forces would escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz if necessary. Last week, Trump urged tanker crews sailing through the vital waterway to “show some guts.”

BRICS should play an essential role in international stability and security, Tehran’s foreign minister has told New Delhi

International bodies and organizations should come forward to condemn the US-Israel military aggression against Iran, Tehran has told India.

The message was conveyed during Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s telephone conversation on Thursday night with his Indian counterpart, S. Jaishankar. The two diplomats discussed regional and international developments in what was their fourth call since the latest Middle East crisis erupted, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a X post.

Araghchi briefed Jaishankar on the “acts of aggression and atrocities committed by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran, as well as the consequences for regional and global stability and security,” the ministry said.

The foreign minister emphasized “the firm resolve” of the Iranian government, nation, and armed forces “to exercise their legitimate right to self-defense,” according to the statement

Iranian FM Holds Call With EAM Jaishankar, Calls BRICS 'Essential' To 'Support Regional & Global Security' - 🇮🇷 Readout

The EAM also expressed India's readiness to develop bilateral and multilateral cooperation in various forums and stress the need for sustainable stability and… pic.twitter.com/UVixbRXD8g

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) March 13, 2026

Araghchi also stressed the importance of BRICS “as a forum for developing multilateral cooperation,” and said the bloc should play a constructive role in supporting regional and global stability and security.

India holds the BRICS chair in 2026. Iran joined the grouping in January 2024.

The Iranian statement said Jaishankar emphasized the need to strengthen sustainable stability and security in the region as a collective necessity.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday night and voiced deep concern over the “escalation of tensions, the loss of civilian lives, and the damage to civilian infrastructure.”

The safety and security of Indian citizens, along with the need for uninterrupted flow of goods and energy, remain India’s top priorities, Modi told Pezeshkian, according to his X post.

Modi reiterated India’s commitment to peace and stability and called for dialogue and diplomacy.

New Delhi has so far not condemned the US and Israel for the attack on a school that killed more than 160 girls or the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On Thursday, India cosponsored a resolution in the UN Security Council that condemns Iran’s recent attacks on Arab countries.

The news agency reported that New Delhi could delay signing the pact after a new tariff probe by the Trump administration

India has rejected claims by Reuters that it is holding back bilateral engagement or delaying a trade deal with the US, saying talks between the two countries are continuing toward a “mutually beneficial agreement.”

The news agency earlier claimed, citing sources, that New Delhi would postpone signing a trade deal with Washington by several months.

Commenting on Friday, the Indian Commerce Ministry said: “We have noted a media report regarding ongoing trade talks with US. It is denied that there is any hold off in bilateral engagement. It is reiterated that the two sides remain engaged for a mutually beneficial trade agreement.”

The supposed delay comes amid investigations by the Donald Trump administration into what it calls excessive industrial capacity among trading partners such as India, according to the Reuters report.

India and the US announced an interim trade deal last month, after months of negotiations following a steep 50% tariff imposed by Washington on the South Asian nation in August 2025.

Washington reduced India’s tariff burden to 18% from the earlier 50%, which was the highest for any country in Asia. Half of the tariff was for New Delhi’s imports of Russian oil.

The US said that as a part of the deal, India would stop buying oil from Russia, a claim that New Delhi has not confirmed. 

Trade talks between the countries stalled last month after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs on imports from various countries.

Earlier this month, the US granted India a 30-day waiver to purchase oil from Russia, aimed at ensuring stability in the global oil market following the US-Israeli attack on Iran.

India has stated that it does not need US permission to buy Russian oil.

“In the national interest, India purchases oil from wherever the most competitive and affordable prices are available,” the Indian government said in a statement last week.  

India signed a trade pact with the European Union this year, and with the UK, Oman, and New Zealand in 2025.

Four deportees, a Tanzanian, a Sudanese and two Somalis, have arrived in Eswatini, the government has said

Eswatini has received a third batch of migrants deported from the United States, despite the African Union’s concerns that Western governments have been shifting their migration and asylum burdens onto the continent.

The latest group of four brings the number of deportees sent to the southern African nation to at least 19 since July, after it struck a controversial agreement with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

“Of the four individuals, one is originally from Tanzania, the other from Sudan, and two are from Somalia,” the Eswatini government said on Thursday, adding that efforts to return them to their countries of origin were underway.

The transfers are part of the Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown, after the US Supreme Court lifted restrictions on deporting migrants to countries with which they have no ties.

Since returning to office last year, Trump has reinstated a string of hardline immigration measures, making good on campaign pledges to reverse what he called the “open border” policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, Cameroon and South Sudan have also agreed to accept foreign deportees from the US.

Eswatini, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, received its first batch of third-country deportees in July. The US Department of Homeland Security described them as five “uniquely barbaric criminals” from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen. A second group arrived in October, bringing the total to 15 before the latest deportations.

The Kingdom has confirmed receiving $5.1 million from Washington under the deal, which allows it to host third-country nationals pending their eventual repatriation to their countries of origin.

The arrangement has also sparked protests in Eswatini, with human rights lawyers saying several deportees who had already completed their US sentences were being held in a maximum-security prison in the tiny landlocked country, with restricted access, while awaiting repatriation.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, an AU body, warned late last year that such accords could expose migrants to heightened risks of rights violations.

On Thursday, Eswatini’s government said it remained committed “to ensuring that the rights and dignity of the third-country nationals are upheld while they remain in the country.”

A Lebanon-born US citizen died after crashing his car into a Detroit-area Jewish house of worship

The Lebanese-born suspect in Thursday’s attack on a Detroit-area synagogue reportedly lost family members to an Israeli strike earlier this month, a local official has said.

The body of Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, 41, was found at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, after he allegedly rammed his car into the building. Armed guards responded by firing at the vehicle. The Department of Homeland Security identified him, stating he entered the US in 2009 and was naturalized as a US citizen in 2016.

While officials said his motive remains under investigation, Mo Baydoun, the mayor of neighboring Dearborn Heights, suggested Ghazali may have been seeking revenge against Israel.

“Earlier this month, he lost several members of his own family, including his niece and nephew, in an Israeli attack on their home in Lebanon,” the official said on Facebook, stressing that he unequivocally condemned any attack on a house of worship or people seeking to pray in peace.

Israel has renewed strikes on Lebanon as it joins the US in an effort to topple Iran’s government through targeted assassinations and strategic bombings. Militant groups hostile to Israel and backed by Iran, primarily Hezbollah, maintain strong positions in Lebanon – an ethnically and religiously diverse nation with a history of Israeli-inflamed factional strife.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported that as of Wednesday, at least 634 people had been killed and over 1,500 injured in renewed Israeli bombings. The death toll includes dozens of women, children, and paramedics responding to the crisis, officials have said.

Ghazali was the only person killed in the Michigan incident. One security guard was lightly struck by the suspect’s car, and at least 30 law enforcement officers suffered smoke inhalation after the vehicle erupted in flames and started a fire, according to Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard.

The sheriff said Ghazali had a rifle with him. According to the media, his body was badly burned, and a large amount of possible explosives was found in the back of the car, suggesting he could have caused significant damage.