The accused impersonator went to a New York federal jail armed with a pizza cutter
A pizzeria worker from Minnesota has been arrested after reportedly posing as an FBI agent in an attempt to free Luigi Mangione – the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – from a New York prison.
The improbable jailbreak attempt occurred on Wednesday evening, according to a criminal complaint reviewed by a magistrate judge Thursday. The defendant, 36-year-old Mark Anderson of Mankato, told Bureau of Prisons officers at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn that he was a federal agent with an order signed by a judge to release a prisoner.
When asked for credentials, he produced a driver’s license, threw documents at officers, and claimed he was armed. Officers later found a barbecue fork and a circular blade resembling a pizza cutter in his bag.
BREAKING: A Minnesota man identified as Mark Anderson allegedly attempted to break Luigi out of prison by impersonating an FBI agent. He was reportedly armed with a BBQ fork and what appeared to be a pizza cutter and was quickly arrested and charged with impersonating a federal… pic.twitter.com/nidtJb8spX
The complaint did not name the inmate Anderson sought to break out, but multiple outlets, citing sources, identified him as Mangione, with CNBC first reporting the news. Anderson reportedly traveled to New York for a job that fell through and was working at a Bronx pizzeria.
Mangione, 27, was indicted on federal and state charges with Thompson’s December 2024 shooting death. He pleaded not guilty and could receive the death penalty if convicted. The attack was described by many observers as a criminal yet unsurprising rebuke of US healthcare corporatization, with UnitedHealthcare described as particularly predatory.
The shooter attracted a small group of supporters who approve of his alleged actions. Media reports suggest that Anderson is among them and may have a mental health condition.
The US president has warned the long-standing allies against courting Beijing
US President Donald Trump has warned Canada and the UK that their recent efforts to improve business ties with China are “very dangerous,” as both nations seek to reset relations with Beijing amid tensions with Washington.
Trump made the remarks on Thursday at the premiere of a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. Asked about a recent UK-China summit in Beijing, he said: “Well, it’s very dangerous for them to do that.”
The US president went on to say that it’s “even more dangerous for Canada to get into business with China.”
“Canada is not doing well… You can’t look at China as the answer,” he said, quipping that China might tell Canada: “you’re not allowed to play ice hockey anymore.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer told Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday that he wants to build a “more sophisticated relationship” between the two countries, describing ties as having gone from “a golden age to an ice age.”
Downing Street said China agreed to halve import tariffs on British whisky to 5% from 10% and confirmed visa-free travel for British nationals visiting for under 30 days. AstraZeneca also set out plans to invest $15 billion in China through 2030 during the trip.
Canada has also sought a thaw with China. Prime Minister Mark Carney traveled to Beijing in mid-January, where he reached a preliminary deal to allow capped imports of Chinese electric vehicles at a 6.1% tariff, while Canada expects China to cut punitive canola tariffs to 15% by March.
At the time, Trump lashed out at Canada, claiming that China is “completely taking over” the country, while suggesting that it “lives because of the United States.” He also threatened 100% tariffs if Canada’s deal with China goes through.
Both Canada and the UK have been at loggerheads with the US over Trump’s renewed push to establish control over Greenland.
Chinese officials said the country’s deals with Canada “do not target any third party.” As for the UK-China summit, Beijing said the meeting showed a willingness on both sides to strengthen dialogue and expand practical cooperation.
President Donald Trump has said he hopes he won’t have to use the “very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now”
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said the military is fully prepared to “deliver whatever” President Donald Trump orders regarding Iran, as a naval “armada” moves toward the region.
Speaking at a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Hegseth warned Iran against pursuing nuclear weapons, which it denies that it is seeking.
“We will be prepared to deliver whatever this president expects of the War Department,” he said.
Hegseth framed the recent US operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as a demonstration of capability and intent. “That sends a message to every capital around the world that when President Trump speaks, he means business.”
Trump has described the Middle East naval deployment as a “massive” and “beautiful armada,” led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and reportedly larger than the fleet sent to Venezuela. Multiple guided-missile destroyers have been tracked moving through the Suez Canal and near the Strait of Hormuz, while surveillance aircraft are also operating in the area, according to ship and flight tracking data.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now, and it would be great if we didn’t have to use them,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.
Despite the military posturing, Trump said he is planning to speak with Iranian leaders. He cited two demands for Tehran: “Number one, no nuclear. And number two, stop killing protesters.”
US military planning appears to be active. Media reports, citing sources, indicate that Trump is considering options ranging from strikes on Iranian security forces and nuclear sites to targeting officials – with the aim of reigniting anti-government protests.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in Senate testimony this week, said Iran could be struck “preemptively” if it perceives a threat to US or allied troops. Rubio called Iran “weaker than it has ever been,” but warned that regime change would be more complex than in Venezuela.
Iran has responded with defiance. A deputy foreign minister said the country is “200 percent ready to defend itself” and warned that any US attack would receive an “appropriate response, not a proportionate one,” potentially targeting American bases in the region. Iran’s UN mission stated that it is “ready for dialogue,” but if pushed, will “respond like never before.”
The US president has accused the federal agencies of facilitating a leak of his tax records
US President Donald Trump has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department, alleging that the agencies failed to protect his confidential tax records from a politically motivated leak that he claims caused “reputational and financial harm.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Thursday, names Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization as plaintiffs. It alleges that the IRS and Treasury “wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee” to leak private tax information to the New York Times and ProPublica, among other outlets.
“Defendants have caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing,” the complaint states, as cited by Bloomberg.
The case centers on former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024 after pleading guilty to stealing and disclosing tax records. Littlejohn admitted to leaking Trump’s tax information to the New York Times, which reported in 2020 that Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.
The contractor also provided data on Trump and “all businesses that he had owned” to ProPublica. The lawsuit claims that subsequent reporting falsely suggested the documents contained “versions of fraud.”
The Treasury Department and IRS have yet to comment on the lawsuit.
The filing comes just days after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the cancellation of all department contracts with the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, where Littlejohn was employed. Bessent cited the firm’s failure to implement adequate safeguards, calling the move “an essential step to increasing Americans’ trust in government.”
The leak, described by prosecutors as “unparalleled in the IRS’s history,” affected around 406,000 taxpayers and spanned more than 15 years of financial data. Trump’s lawsuit seeks at least $10 billion in damages, arguing that the agencies’ negligence enabled a breach that damaged his family’s business and public standing.
The US president has dramatically escalated pressure on the government in Havana and its trade partners
US President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency and threatened to impose steep tariffs on any country supplying oil to Cuba, dramatically escalating pressure on Havana after the US military operation in Venezuela already cut the island nation off from its most crucial energy source.
After abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier this month, the US has set its sights on Cuba, which Trump claims is “ready to fall” next. In an executive order signed on Thursday, Trump branded Cuba “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.
“The United States has zero tolerance for the depredations of the communist Cuban regime,” the order states. “I find that the policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Cuba directly threaten the safety, national security, and foreign policy of the United States.”
The order establishes a mechanism to impose severe additional tariffs on imports from any nation caught directly or indirectly selling or providing oil to Havana. It grants broad authority to the secretaries of state and commerce to identify violators and recommend tariff levels to the president.
The measure formalizes and intensifies a de facto energy blockade that has been tightening for weeks. The US military operation that captured Maduro earlier this month cut off Cuba’s primary source of oil.
Subsequent pressure on Mexico, Havana’s last remaining supplier, has left the island facing dire shortages.
Trump predicted on Tuesday that the Cuban government would be “failing pretty soon,” boasting that the cutoff of Venezuelan oil and revenue has pushed Havana to the brink.
According to data firm Kpler, Cuba has just 15 to 20 days of oil reserves remaining. The country is already enduring daily blackouts, and analysts warn of economic collapse and a humanitarian crisis without rapid resupply.
The White House, in a fact sheet, framed the emergency declaration as a necessary response to malign activity, accusing Cuba of hosting “Russia’s largest overseas signals intelligence facility” and providing a “safe environment” for terrorist groups. It also accused Havana of spreading “communist” influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has remained defiant, stating earlier this week that “the harshness of these times and the brutality of the threats against Cuba will not hold us back.”
Cuba has been under a US trade embargo since the 1960s, but has not faced the prospect of a naval blockade since 1962, when then-President John F. Kennedy placed it under “quarantine” for 13 days to prevent the transfer of Soviet missiles to the Cuban military.
The candidate orbits a Sun-like star about 146 light-years away, and may be as cold as Mars, according to NASA
Scientists have discovered a distant, Earth-sized planet that may be capable of supporting life, according to NASA.
The candidate, named HD 137010 b, orbits a Sun-like star about 146 light-years from Earth and may have icy, Mars-like conditions. The findings were published this week in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
An international team of researchers in Australia, the UK, US, and Denmark identified the planet using data captured in 2017 by NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope during its extended K2 mission. HD 137010 b was spotted during a brief transit, when it passed in front of its star, causing a tiny dimming event.
The planet has an orbit similar to Earth’s, lasting about 355 days, according to Chelsea Huang of the University of Southern Queensland, a co-author of the study. Most other Earth-like exoplanets around sun-like stars are much farther and fainter.
“This is the first planet candidate with Earth-like radius and orbital properties transiting a Sun-like star bright enough for substantial follow-up observations,” the researchers said.
Being near the outer edge of its star’s habitable zone, the planet would receive less than a third of the heat and light Earth gets from the Sun. Its surface could be as cold as minus 68 degrees Celsius (minus 90 F), roughly the same as Mars. Scientists say a dense, carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere could warm the planet, giving it a 40-51% chance of falling within the habitable zone.
HD 137010 b is still a candidate planet. Only one transit has been observed, and its year-long orbit makes repeated transits rare. Confirmation could come from NASA’s TESS satellite or Europe’s CHEOPS mission, though some data may have to wait for next-generation telescopes.
The researchers said that the size, orbit, and bright host star make HD 137010 b a promising target for follow-up studies to learn more about Earth-like planets beyond the solar system.
A union chief said that a “show of force” was necessary to secure more funding
Hundreds of firefighters have taken to the streets in the French city of Lille, protesting low pay and grueling work conditions. Police attempting to hold them back were punched, kicked, and hosed down with fire extinguishers.
Around 600 firefighters took part in Thursday’s demonstration, French media reported. After assembling at a fire station in Lille, they marched to the headquarters of the Departmental Fire and Rescue Service (SDIS), lighting flares and setting bonfires along the route.
Labor unions claim that France’s Nord region is short more than 100 firefighters and that those on shift are forced to handle double the workload.
Riot police initially dropped their shields and allowed the protesters to approach the SDIS building. However, heavily armored officers attempted to disperse the crowd after the firefighters trashed the lobby of the building and set tire fires outside.
Les pompiers ont envahi des locaux du SDIS Nord à Lille.
The firefighters pushed back against the police, punching and shoving and forcing them to retreat into a parking garage. Firefighters sprayed the officers with fire extinguishers, and the melee was eventually broken up when the police used tear gas and batons on the crowd.
You're watching striking firefighters giving the cops a taste of their own medicine in Lille today. Fighting the rich. Hosing their attack dogs. This is what resistance looks like. pic.twitter.com/xHdSKOPgGm
The protest achieved its goals. SDIS representatives met with union leaders shortly after the clashes, promising to hire an additional 50 firefighters. “Surprisingly, they found a way to save money and access the necessary funding,” a union secretary told Ici radio. “It took a show of force to get what we wanted.”
Thursday’s protest was the latest in an ongoing series of strikes, demonstrations, and riots to hit France in recent months. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in September to protest planned budget cuts, after Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu’s government lasted a mere 14 hours before collapsing. Lecornu formed a second government the following month, which set off another wave of demonstrations.
French President Emmanuel Macron faced calls to resign over his failure to appoint a stable government, and over his efforts to pass deeply unpopular austerity measures. Following the second round of protests in October, his approval rating fell to a record low of 11%.
The five suspects are accused of misconduct in public office and stealing cash from illegals who had crossed the English Channel on boats
Five British immigration officers have appeared in court on charges of stealing cash from illegal migrants who arrived in the UK across the English Channel on small boats, Reuters reported on Thursday.
The officers were charged at Westminster Magistrates’ Court with conspiracy to steal, misconduct in public office, and money laundering for alleged offenses between August 2021 and November 2022.
Prosecutors told the court the defendants worked on Britain’s south coast “dealing with recent arrivals on small boats.” It stated that many of these people arrived “with relatively large sums of money in cash on their person,” and that the officers “worked together to take that money for themselves and share it.”
A sixth defendant faces a single charge of money laundering. All six were granted bail, with their next hearing scheduled at Southwark Crown Court next month. None were asked to enter pleas.
The case comes amid rising tensions over immigration across the UK as illegal boat crossings have become a focal point for many voters and have led to a rise of anti-immigration sentiment. The controversy has further been escalated by increasing criminal activity linked to illegals.
Earlier this week, The Times reported on a black market in fake skilled-worker visa sponsorships. An investigation found agents charging up to £20,000 ($27,500) to fabricate payroll records for non-existent jobs, allowing migrants to stay in the UK while forcing them into unofficial cash-in-hand work.
The issues have eroded trust in the British government, with polls showing Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approval rating plummeting while support for Nigel Farage’s opposition right-wing Reform party has risen.
The government has responded by announcing a planned overhaul of its immigration policy in an effort to reduce the number of arriving illegals. In November, the British Home Office also proposed confiscating high-value assets, including vehicles and “bags full of gold rings,” from asylum seekers to help cover the cost of benefits.
Gerard Darmanin has toughened his stance as he prepares a run for the presidency
French Justice Minister Gerard Darmanin has proposed a near-total halt to legal immigration for up to three years, as he prepares to take on the right-wing National Rally in next year’s presidential election.
Speaking to French broadcaster LCI this week, Darmanin said that he supports “a suspension of immigration for two or three years, with a corresponding increase in wages so that the jobs that foreigners do at very low cost go to French citizens.”
After the moratorium, he proposed introducing a “quota system,” and holding a referendum to decide the number of immigrants allowed into France in the future.
There are nearly 4.5 million legal immigrants in France, accounting for more than 8% of the adult population, according to figures from the country’s Interior Ministry. An additional 700,000 migrants are believed to be living in France illegally. According to an opinion poll cited by The Times, 80% of French voters support tougher immigration policies.
National Rally leader Jordan Bardella is currently leading all opinion polls for next year’s presidential election, with former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal of President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party a distant third. Bardella has labeled immigration a threat “to the very existence of France,” and has promised that his first act as president would be to hold a referendum on immigration.
Darmanin is a member of Macron’s party. He told LCI that he considers himself “presidential material,” and called on his party to hold a primary election to choose a candidate to take on the National Rally.
Darmanin drafted an ambitious immigration reform bill in 2023, which would have introduced strict quotas, ended family reunification and birthright citizenship, and barred most immigrants from accessing social benefits.
However, these provisions were stricken from the text by France’s Constitutional Council. The version signed by Macron the following year allowed illegal immigrants in certain industries to obtain work permits, while simplifying the deportation process for others.
Despite uproar from the right-wing voters he is now trying to court, Darmanin said that he would not introduce another bill on the subject.
The Kremlin has not commented on the supposed ‘energy ceasefire’
US President Donald Trump has claimed that Russia will not attack targets in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities “for a week.” Trump said that the decision came after he “personally asked” Russian President Vladimir Putin to suspend the strikes.
“Because of the extreme cold…I personally asked President Putin not to fire on Kiev and the cities and towns for a week,” Trump told reporters at a cabinet meeting on Thursday. Putin “agreed to do that,” Trump continued, adding that “we’re very happy” with the decision.
Earlier on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov refused to comment on rumors that Moscow and Kiev had reached a co-called ‘energy ceasefire’. Ukrainian MP Aleksey Goncharenko claimed that while “there is an agreement on an energy truce,” there “is no date for the start of this truce.”
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly called for an energy ceasefire, during which both sides would cease targeting each others’ power plants and electrical grid. These calls intensified this week, after repeated Russian strikes on power infrastructure left nearly a million households in the dark in Kiev on Wednesday, according to Ukrainian Energy Minister Denis Shmigal.
Russia maintains that it targets only those facilities used by the Ukrainian military and military industrial complex, and that its attacks are a direct response to Kiev’s deep strikes on Russian civilians and critical infrastructure.
Temperatures in the Ukrainian capital are predicted to dip to -13 Celsius (8 F) this weekend.
Russia agreed to an energy ceasefire last March, following talks with Trump’s administration. However, Ukrainian forces broke the ceasefire within days, launching attacks on Russian oil refineries and gas infrastructure. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow chose not to retaliate in kind, preferring to honor the ceasefire.
After both Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron called for another truce last month, Peskov said that Russia seeks a permanent peace, rather than another temporary pause. “We are working on peace, not on a ceasefire,” he said. “A stable, guaranteed, long-term peace, achieved through the signing of appropriate documents, is an absolute priority.”
Ukraine cannot demand to be admitted to the bloc by a certain date, Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel has said
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should not “give ultimatums” to the EU over the country’s membership in the bloc, Luxembourgish Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel told reporters on Thursday.
Days earlier, the Ukrainian leader said he expects his country to be admitted to the EU by 2027, as part of a US-backed peace deal.
“I’m sorry, I told him…several times ‘don’t give ultimatums. It’s not in your interest’,” Bettel told journalists in Brussels.
“The fact is there are rules, they have the Copenhagen criteria and we need to fulfill them,” he said. The ‘Copenhagen criteria’ require an EU aspirant nation to have stable democratic institutions, a competitive market economy, and the bloc’s extensive body of law implemented.
Bettel also expressed concern that despite bloc membership being mentioned as part of a settlement of the Ukraine conflict, the EU is being sidelined from the peace talks.
“They are around the table and we are not… I think we are waiting outside for the bill without being around the table.”
According to Zelensky, Ukraine will be fully ready to join the EU by next year.
“We want a specific date in our treaty on ending the war,” he said on Sunday, days after a controversial speech in Davos in which he ridiculed the bloc as indecisive and incapable of defending itself without help from Washington.
Ukraine’s EU accession is reportedly being discussed as part of a US-brokered peace deal, which also includes an $800 billion post-war reconstruction plan circulated to bloc members last week.
However, multiple member states have rejected the idea of fast-tracking Ukraine’s candidate status into full membership.
“Ukraine’s accession on January 1, 2027, is out of the question. It is not possible,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Wednesday, adding that it would take the country “several years” to meet the membership criteria.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stressed that his country’s parliament would not vote to allow accession “in the next hundred years.”
Moscow has said it has no objections to Ukraine seeking EU membership. However, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has condemned what he described as the EU’s transition into an “aggressive military bloc.”
Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO has remained a red line for Russia and one of the underlying causes of the ongoing conflict.
Berlin needs action, not constant commentary on international crises, Tino Chrupalla has said
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz should “step forward” and re-engage in dialogue with Russia, opposition lawmaker Tino Chrupalla has said, warning that Germany is sliding toward “deindustrialization” and urgently needs action.
The remarks came a day after Merz outright refused to engage in direct talks with Moscow, maintaining that Berlin would not be an intermediary in the Ukraine peace process. Moscow and Kiev should talk to each other directly, he told journalists following the government coalition meeting on Wednesday. “We are not a mediator here,” Merz said.
Addressing parliament on Thursday, Chrupalla, who leads the Alternative for Germany (AfD) faction in the Bundestag, said Germany needs action rather than “constant commentary… on the international crises.” The country is facing “deindustrialization,” he warned, adding that the German economy was “losing 1,000 jobs per day” last year.
“As the head of the German government, take a step forward and finally call Moscow and negotiate peace and prosperity for the European continent,” Chrupalla said, adding that it was high time Merz stopped “clumsily hiding behind ornamental plants.”
Germany’s economy, which had relied on Russia for 55% of its natural gas, took a heavy blow after the country joined Western sanctions against Moscow following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
High energy prices – a result of the government’s decision to ditch cost-effective Russian oil and gas imports – have repeatedly been cited by German media and officials as a key factor behind the economic slowdown. In mid-January, the country’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry linked it to what it called an alarmingly high number of bankruptcies.
Russia has repeatedly stated that it is ready to resume dialogue with European nations at any time. In December, Yury Ushakov, an aide to President Vladimir Putin, said that any European leaders were “welcome to come to Moscow,” adding that it is the Europeans themselves, who refuse all contact.
The Syrian leader’s latest Moscow trip has clearly shown that Russian won’t be excluded from Middle Easter affairs
On 28 January, Syria’s transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa returned to Moscow for a working visit and held talks with President Vladimir Putin. The fact that this was his second trip to the Russian capital in a short space of time spoke louder than any ceremonial handshake.
Damascus is testing a diplomatic anchor, reaffirming a channel that has proved resilient in storms, and signaling that Syria’s re-entry into high politics would be measured by binding arrangements that touch the hardest questions of power, security, and economic recovery. The composition of the accompanying delegation made the message unmistakable. Foreign policy, defense, and sensitive regional portfolios were all represented, as if Damascus had arrived not with one conversation to have, but with an entire state to rebuild.
For a transitional leadership, the margin for improvisation is thin. Institutions are fragile, loyalties are being rebalanced, and the public expects tangible change in a country exhausted by years of war and isolation. In such circumstances, foreign partnerships are not luxuries. They become instruments of internal stabilization. That is why al-Sharaa’s interest in Russia reads, above all, as strategic pragmatism. Moscow is one of the few actors with whom Syria already has an established infrastructure of interaction, including a long-standing military and political presence, working mechanisms of coordination, and a capacity to translate diplomatic decisions into effects on the ground. When the future of a state is negotiated in the language of ceasefires, de-escalation lines, and contested jurisdictions, the ability to enforce or guarantee outcomes matters as much as the ability to announce them.
Against this backdrop, the Russian military footprint in Syria naturally surfaced as a central theme. For Damascus, the question of Russian facilities is inseparable from sovereignty, bargaining power, and the architecture of national consolidation. It is leverage that can be exchanged for security commitments, political backing, and investment in reconstruction. For Moscow, those facilities are strategic assets that underpin Russia’s regional presence and influence, a logistical bridge to the Eastern Mediterranean, and a practical symbol of continuity in a shifting Middle East. When both sides return to this topic in public, it indicates that they are not merely maintaining an old relationship but renegotiating its terms for a new phase.
The economic dimension of the talks added weight to this interpretation. Putin’s remarks about the need to preserve the emerging momentum in economic cooperation and his stated readiness for Russian companies, including construction firms, to participate in Syria’s rebuilding, were a reminder that Russia sees Syria not only as a security file, but as a space where material projects can lock political agreements into place. Al-Sharaa’s emphasis on the density of contacts between the two countries, including numerous mutual visits by delegations, reinforced the same point from the Syrian side. A transitional government survives on credibility, and credibility is built through visible outputs. Roads, housing, energy infrastructure, and restored supply chains communicate stability far more persuasively than any communiqué. For Damascus, therefore, Moscow represents a partner that can be integrated into the practical mechanics of recovery rather than only into the rhetoric of partnership.
Yet the most striking part of the visit was a symbolic statement that al-Sharaa chose to deliver in the opening moments. He recalled the snow on the road from the airport to the Kremlin and turned it into a historical metaphor. He spoke of how military campaigns by great powers had sought to reach Moscow and failed, not only because of the courage of Russian soldiers but also because nature itself had helped to defend this blessed land, adding that Syrians pray for its lasting security. The imagery was carefully selected and instantly intelligible to a Russian audience. It placed Russia in a familiar national narrative of endurance under external pressure and ultimate victory over invaders. It was a compliment, but it was also a statement of alignment. In diplomacy, especially in moments of regional realignment, language is a form of positioning.
Read through the prism of the conflict in Ukraine and the broader confrontation between Russia and the West, this passage becomes even more revealing. Russia’s framing of the conflict has often drawn on the vocabulary of historical struggle, encirclement, and resistance to outside coercion. By invoking failed “marches on Moscow” and a protective winter, al-Sharaa inserted himself into that frame and reinforced a worldview in which Russia is not an ‘aggressor’ seeking expansion for its own sake, but a power compelled to defend itself against recurring attempts to weaken and subdue it. The metaphor folds contemporary geopolitics into the long memory of European campaigns and the idea of a Russia that cannot be broken by pressure, whether military or economic. In effect, the Syrian leader offered Moscow what it prizes in such times, an external voice that echoes, rather than disputes, Russia’s own story about the era it is living through.
The subtext was also directed outward. The figure of nature helping to defend Russia implies inevitability. It suggests that efforts to force Russia into strategic retreat are futile, that sanctions and containment will not achieve what armies once could not, and that attempts to isolate Moscow will founder on the same rock as earlier campaigns did. In a period when Western policy toward Russia is built on endurance, attrition, and long-term pressure, such symbolism signals confidence that Russia will outlast the storm and encourages those watching from outside the Western bloc to consider the costs of betting against Moscow.
What gave this symbolism additional force was its timing. Al-Sharaa delivered it in Moscow at a moment when sensitive, concrete issues were on the table, including the configuration of Russia’s military presence in Syria and the broader question of how Moscow intends to balance its regional commitments while heavily engaged on the Ukrainian front. In such a setting, a historical metaphor becomes a diplomatic down payment. It reduces ambiguity about where Damascus stands amid global polarization and helps build the trust required for negotiations that involve hard security guarantees and long-term commitments. It also adds a cultural and moral layer through the religious phrasing, which resonates with Russia’s own cultivated self-image as a defender of tradition against a West portrayed as ideologically aggressive and morally corrosive. The message was not merely that Syria wants partnership with Russia, but that Syria understands the symbolic language through which Russia articulates its place in the world.
The Russian side, for its part, reciprocated with language that carried both praise and strategic meaning. Putin publicly emphasized that Russia had been carefully watching the efforts of Syria’s new authorities to restore the country’s territorial integrity, congratulating al-Sharaa on the momentum of that process and reiterating that Moscow has always supported Syria’s unity. He singled out the integration of the territory beyond the Euphrates in the north-east as an especially important step and expressed hope that it would contribute to restoring the country’s integrity as a whole. In the diplomatic grammar of the region, this was not a neutral statement. It amounted to explicit political endorsement of the transitional leadership’s central project, the reassertion of state control over spaces long characterized by exceptional arrangements, competing authorities, and foreign patronage.
That emphasis on the north-east was particularly telling. For years, that area has been associated with a different set of balances, with Kurdish forces, the shadow of American influence, and the logic of partial autonomy that often emerges when central authority weakens. By naming its integration a “crucial” step, Moscow was effectively validating Damascus’s drive toward recentralization and signaling opposition to the fragmentation of sovereignty. This has a regional dimension, because it touches Turkish interests, Kurdish calculations, and the security architecture of the borderlands. It also has a global dimension, because it collides with the Western pattern of influence that often relies on local partners and durable enclaves of control. In other words, Moscow’s words were simultaneously a message of support to Damascus and a statement of principle to the wider international arena.
In the context of Ukraine, this principle carries additional implications. Russia is routinely accused by its adversaries of undermining borders and destabilizing the international order. By articulating support for Syria’s territorial unity, Russia underscores a counter-argument, that it stands for the sovereignty of allied states and opposes externally sustained fragmentation. Whether one accepts this logic or disputes it, the messaging is deliberate. It seeks to widen the narrative battlefield beyond Europe and to demonstrate that in other theatres, Russia defends the idea of a unified state against forces that prefer controlled disorder, frozen conflicts, and areas of contested authority.
There is also a more pragmatic layer. Russia’s interest in a more consolidated Syrian state serves concrete strategic aims. A government that can gradually reassert control is a government more capable of guaranteeing agreements, securing infrastructure, and providing a stable environment for long-term presence and economic projects. For Moscow, this matters even more in a period of heightened confrontation with the West, when external footholds and reliable partners become strategic multipliers. For Damascus, Russian backing strengthens negotiating positions and deters attempts by other actors to treat Syria’s transitional phase as an opportunity for re-partitioning influence on the ground.
Taken together, the exchange of words between al-Sharaa and Putin made the visit more than a routine bilateral meeting, demonstrating how regional politics increasingly intersects with global fault lines. Damascus is signaling that it seeks stability not through isolation but through calibrated partnerships with powers that can deliver security and reconstruction while providing diplomatic cover in a contested international environment. Moscow is highlighting that, despite the burdens of the Ukrainian conflict and the intensity of Western pressure, Russia remains a decisive actor in the Middle East, able to shape outcomes, endorse leaders, and influence the trajectory of post-war state-building.
This is where the broader conclusion emerges. The very intensity of Damascus’s engagement with Moscow under a new leadership underscores the continuing weight of Russia in regional affairs. Syria could have tried to diversify quietly and keep Russia at arm’s length, treating the old relationship as baggage. Instead, it chose to reaffirm the channel quickly and publicly, using both practical negotiation and heavy symbolism. That choice is a recognition that Russia is not an optional participant in the regional equation. It is a power whose role has become structurally embedded in the security and diplomatic landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant.
For other players, the visit is a reminder of something equally fundamental. Whatever narratives circulate in Western capitals, whatever expectations are placed on isolation and attrition, the world keeps producing situations where Moscow’s presence is not merely relevant but necessary. Russia is being tested and challenged, yet it continues to sit at tables where the fate of states is discussed, and it continues to be courted by leaders who are rebuilding their legitimacy and their countries. The meeting in Moscow therefore served as a political message in itself. It demonstrated that Russia’s influence is not confined to a single theatre, and that global affairs are still shaped by those who can combine military leverage, diplomatic endurance, and the ability to offer partners a framework for stability.
In that sense, al-Sharaa’s trip was not only about Syria’s next steps. It was also about Russia’s enduring place in the international system. Damascus’s interest was a regional indicator and a global signal. It pointed to a reality that many would prefer to overlook yet repeatedly encounter, that major questions of war and peace, reconstruction and sovereignty, cannot be settled by one side alone, and that without Russia’s participation, the architecture of decisions remains incomplete.
Tehran has called the move a “PR stunt” by “an actor in severe decline”
EU foreign ministers have agreed to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization,” the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, announced on Thursday.
Kallas announced the decision in a post on X, calling the move “decisive.” Earlier on Thursday, the bloc’s foreign ministers also voted to sanction 15 individuals – mostly law enforcement officials – and six entities accused of “human rights violations” in Iran.
“Repression cannot go unanswered,” Kallas stated. “Any regime that kills thousands of its own people is working toward its own demise.”
EU officials have accused the IRGC and the sanctioned individuals of orchestrating a brutal crackdown on anti-government rioters earlier this month. Tehran claims that legitimate protests were hijacked by American and Israeli agents, who attacked security forces and civilians alike in an attempt to provoke a harsh response and justify US military intervention.
Responding to the designation, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the EU of “fanning the flames” of conflict, despite the fact that Europe would be “massively impacted by an all-out war in our region.” He called the move a “PR stunt” and labeled Brussels “an actor in severe decline.”
The EU designation was initially opposed by several nations, including France, Italy, and Spain. They argued that blacklisting the IRGC – an official branch of the Iranian military – would sever critical diplomatic channels with Tehran.
Kallas dismissed these concerns, telling reporters that “the diplomatic channels will remain open even after the listing of the Revolutionary Guards.”
Iran will likely respond in kind. In 2023, after the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for the IRGC’s blacklisting, Iran’s parliament drafted legislation that would designate the armed forces of all EU member states as terrorist organizations.
The IRGC has also been labeled a terrorist group by the US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Iran responded to the US designation in 2019 by applying the same label to US Central Command (CENTCOM).
US President Donald Trump has moved what he calls an “armada” of warships to the Persian Gulf. On Wednesday, Trump urged Tehran to “make a deal” on the future of its nuclear program, or face a “far worse” attack than that on its nuclear facilities last summer.
Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has said that Tehran is willing to negotiate, but that Iranian forces have “their fingers on the trigger” to respond to any US aggression.
Shahid Butt has urged his young supporters to knock their enemies’ “teeth out”
A convicted Islamist terrorist is running for local office in the British city of Birmingham. Shahid Butt has urged voters to overlook his past “mistakes,” which include conspiring to bomb the British consulate in Yemen.
In an interview with Birmingham Live this week, Butt described himself as the “ideal candidate” to “unite” his district of Sparkhill in city council elections this May. Two-thirds of Sparkhill’s residents are of Pakistani origin, while a third of Birmingham’s 1.1 million population is Muslim.
Butt was jailed for five years in Yemen in 1999, after being found guilty of planning attacks with a gang of Jihadists on the British consulate in Aden, an Anglican church, and a Swiss-owned hotel.
He maintains that he did nothing wrong, and that his confession was extracted under torture. “It was all just made up,” he told the Birmingham Mail. “Nobody actually died, nothing happened at all.”
He has admitted to “mistakes” in his past, however. Butt was a member of a Pakistani street gang in his youth, which fought with white skinhead gangs in 1980s Birmingham. He also admits to traveling to fight in Afghanistan and Bosnia in the 1990s alongside the son of convicted terrorist Abu Hamza.
Butt, who describes himself as an “Islamist,” is a member of the Independent Candidates Alliance (ICA), a group of Muslim candidates set up by lawyer and accused money launderer Akhmed Yakoob. The ICA is running 20 candidates across Birmingham in the upcoming elections.
“I am not a pacifist,” Butt told Birmingham Live. “If someone attacks me...I am not just going to turn the other cheek, I am going to defend myself. I will be pre-emptive, as the law advises me, if I feel like my life is threatened, or my family, I will do a pre-emptive strike.”
He has advised his fellow Muslims to follow his approach. “Muslims are not pacifists,” he told protesters before local team Aston Villa’s match against Maccabi Tel Aviv last November. “If somebody comes into your face, you knock his teeth out. That’s my message to the youth.”
The US president is reportedly considering targeting Iranian security forces and leaders to encourage renewed protests
US President Donald Trump is considering new military strikes against Iran with the aim of inspiring a renewed protest movement and as a response to failed denuclearization talks, according to media reports.
Two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters that options include targeted strikes on Iranian security forces and leaders. The goal is to create conditions for “regime change” following weeks of violent protests, Reuters reported. CNN, citing its own sources, stated that Trump is also considering strikes on nuclear sites and government institutions.
Trump has not yet made a final decision on whether to take military action.
The planning comes as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the US military posture in the region “could respond and potentially… preemptively prevent” an attack on American forces. During a Senate hearing, Rubio described Iran as “weaker than it has ever been” but acknowledged that any attempt at regime change would be “more complex” than in Venezuela, where the US abducted President Nicolas Maduro earlier this month.
A US carrier strike group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, has recently moved into the region with Trump publicly warning Iran that “the next attack will be far worse” than the US bombing of its nuclear sites last June and urged it to “make a deal” on its nuclear program.
Iran, however, has dismissed Trump’s demands to “make a deal” and has instead declared that it is “200 percent” ready to defend itself in the cause of a new US attack.
Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi warned that any US attack would be met with an “appropriate response, not a proportionate one,” and could target US bases in the region.
Iran’s mission to the United Nations also said Tehran “stands ready for dialogue based on mutual respect and interests – but if pushed, it will defend itself and respond like never before.”
Why the collapse of the US-Russia arms control framework is more about transparency and missile defense than a new arms race
On February 5, the New START treaty between Russia and the US will officially expire, lifting the legally binding limits on global nuclear arsenals. Essentially, this means that the world could enter a potentially dangerous phase of unrestricted nuclear arsenal expansion.
New START was signed in 2011 for a term of ten years, with an option to extend it for another five – a provision that Moscow and Washington utilized in 2021. However, the agreement does not allow for further extensions. Last September, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to Washington that both sides continue to adhere to the treaty’s quantitative limits on strategic nuclear forces for another year after its expiration. While US President Donald Trump called this a good idea, the US has yet to respond officially to Putin’s initiative.
The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads for both countries to 1,550, which includes 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers.
As of January 2025, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia possesses a total of 4,309 warheads, while the US has 3,700.
Generally, experts see little risk of a rapid increase in deployed nuclear arms, as the system of nuclear deterrence developed over the past decades has functioned quite effectively. Therefore, a sudden shift toward an arms race between the two nations seems unlikely, according to Pavel Sharikov, a researcher at the European integration studies department of the RAS Institute of Europe.
“However, the United States may begin developing missile defense systems to bolster its nuclear deterrent – that’s almost certain. Trump has already announced plans for a Golden Dome missile defense system, and his ambitions to acquire Greenland fit into this trend,” Sharikov said.
For the past several years, the US has been pursuing a policy aimed at revising or even dismantling arms control treaties. For example, in 2002, the US withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
During Trump’s first term, Washington exited two other key agreements – the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the 1992 Treaty on Open Skies. Thus, Trump’s lack of interest in extending New START and the desire to instead conclude some other “great deal” are consistent with his general foreign policy strategy.
The most significant blow to the arms control system after the expiration of New START will be a general decline in transparency and trust between nuclear powers. Beyond quantitative and qualitative limitations on weapons, the treaty included provisions for inspections at each other’s nuclear bases, data exchange, notifications regarding the number of systems and their status, and demonstrations of new types and variants of systems covered by the agreement.
Following the escalation of tensions between the US (and the West in general) and Russia and the West’s explicit goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on the country, Russia could not continue to uphold the treaty’s transparency obligations. Consequently, in 2023, Russia suspended its participation in the treaty while maintaining its commitments to limit nuclear arsenals. Thus, one of the primary adverse effects of the collapse of New START occurred even before the treaty officially expired.
Vasily Klimov, a researcher at the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that the lack of transparency will ultimately make it more difficult for both Russia and the US to predict the necessary development of their nuclear deterrent forces.
“The transparency that these agreements were supposed to ensure is disappearing. They are necessary not only to reduce and limit arsenals but also to provide predictability, which is essential for the development of national strategic nuclear forces. Without such an agreement, neither [Russia] nor the United States will have this [predictability],” Klimov told RT.
A last-minute decision to extend New START is improbable. On the one hand, the terms of the treaty itself do not allow for this type of extension. On the other hand, the documents require meticulous preparation and negotiation; we do not see this happening today, even at the level of statements.
“The most we can hope for is a politically binding agreement on adhering to limits on launchers and warheads. Achieving a comprehensive agreement, like the New START signed in Prague, could take years,” Klimov said.
Indeed, there were times when Moscow and Washington agreed to abide by certain norms without ratifying the treaty. For example, in 1981, the US and the Soviet Union agreed to comply with the terms of SALT II (the precursor of START) while discussing START I.
China, Europe, and others
One of the key factors hindering the establishment of a new strategic arms reduction treaty is China’s rapidly growing nuclear arsenal. The US has expressed a desire to involve Beijing in nuclear deterrence talks, citing the need to increase China’s nuclear transparency.
According to SIPRI, China currently possesses about 600 nuclear warheads, and this arsenal is expanding faster than that of any other country – by approximately 100 warheads a year since 2023. Experts note that by the early 2030s, China is expected to catch up with Russia and the US in the total number of warheads.
“No one is stopping China from expanding its offensive nuclear capabilities, and it doesn’t have to answer to anyone about it.
That’s why Trump wants Beijing involved in the agreement. However, this is a very complicated process, as it’s hard to envision how to transition from a bilateral agreement to a trilateral one,” Pavel Sharikov explained.
Moscow shares similar concerns about Europe’s nuclear arsenal, which is also not restricted by any deterrence doctrine. France and the UK possess 290 and 225 warheads, respectively. Germany, while lacking its own nuclear weapons, participates in NATO’s nuclear sharing program.
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted this in January. “We must not forget Putin’s statement that discussing [a new treaty] without considering the arsenals of France and the UK is not feasible,” he said.
Thus, both the US and Russia are looking to expand the list of participants in a new comprehensive nuclear arms limitation treaty. Yet neither China nor European countries show a clear interest in engaging in these negotiations, which could further prolong the process of drafting a new document.
There’s also a risk of how non-nuclear states will react as they watch the actions of Russia and the US. Dr. Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, pointed this out in an article published on the organization’s website.
“For years, non-nuclear-weapon states have increasingly criticized nuclear-armed states for failing to implement Article VI of the NPT, which obliges them to pursue nuclear disarmament. The expiration of New START only months before the NPT Review Conference, beginning on 27 April in New York, will likely intensify these concerns. A joint US-Russian announcement committing to observe at least some elements of the expired treaty – especially if paired with a pledge to resume negotiations – could help somewhat mitigate the looming crisis,” Sokov wrote.
Experts told RT that after the expiration of New START, the focus will likely shift towards defensive measures and missile defense systems rather than the development of offensive weapons.
Europe’s only internationally recognized neutral state claims it needs stronger security amid a “deteriorating geopolitical situation”
Switzerland plans to raise value-added tax to fund a major military expansion and modernization, the government has announced, citing growing security threats. The money would be earmarked for upgrading the armed forces, missile defenses, cybersecurity, and border protection.
Long Europe’s only formally neutral state, Switzerland has traditionally avoided foreign wars, stayed out of military blocs, and relied on a militia-based army. In recent years, however, Bern has abandoned strict neutrality, expanding security cooperation with NATO, forging closer defense ties with the EU, backing Kiev in the Ukraine conflict, and taking part in the sanctions on Russia.
In a statement on Wednesday, the Swiss government said the “deteriorating geopolitical situation” in Europe requires “substantially strengthening Switzerland’s security and defense capabilities,” citing cyberattacks, disinformation, and insufficient military readiness.
Bern said it needs 31 billion Swiss francs ($40.4 billion) for the move. It plans to raise the money by hiking VAT by 0.8 percentage points from the current 8.1% for ten years starting in 2028, depositing the proceeds into an armaments fund. Upgrades will focus on short-range missile defense, anti-drone systems, IT, intelligence, early warning, and civilian security.
Switzerland currently spends around 0.7% of GDP on defense – less than half the European average – and had planned to reach 1% by 2032. Rising costs and high demand for weapons now make this insufficient, Bern said, estimating that the VAT hike would push spending to 1.5% of GDP.
Under Swiss law, the hike requires parliamentary approval and a national referendum. The government plans to draft the law by March, submit it to parliament in the autumn, and hold a vote in summer 2027. Analysts, however, warn that support could be limited. A recent IPSOS survey found that only 31% of Swiss people favor higher military spending – the lowest in Europe, compared with 60% in Germany and 53% in France.
Western leaders have increasingly invoked the perceived ‘Russian threat’ to justify major defense spending hikes in recent months, including pledges by European NATO members to reach 5% of GDP.
Russia has dismissed claims that it plans to attack Europe as baseless fearmongering, warning that “rabid militarization” risks a broader conflict on the continent. Commenting on Switzerland’s growing military alignment with the EU and its stance on the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier accused it of “forfeiting” its neutrality, calling it “an openly hostile state.”
The US can no longer run the world, so it’s trying to lock down Europe
Whether we like it or not, Western countries will remain at the center of Russia’s foreign policy for a very long time. Perhaps indefinitely. The reason is simple: Historically, the main threats to the Russian state have come from this direction. One of the basic laws of geopolitics is that the most important area of a country’s foreign relations is the one that poses the greatest danger.
Even today, despite Russia’s successful expansion of cooperation with the East and the South, and the discovery of new markets and technologies there, relations with the West remain directly tied to the primary function of the Russian state: Protecting the lives and freedoms of its people.
None of our other neighbors present such a threat, either because they lack the physical capabilities or because they are geographically distant from Russia’s main administrative and industrial centers. This is one reason Russia and China can steadily deepen their partnership. Both sides understand that there is no need for a zero-sum game based on weakening each other in anticipation of a future conflict.
The situation with the US and EU is fundamentally different. These powers will remain Russia’s direct military and political adversaries, or at least competitors, for the foreseeable future. Monitoring the processes unfolding there is therefore a key task for Russian diplomacy and analysis. It is hardly surprising that tensions within the ‘transatlantic family’ have attracted so much attention over the past year.
The recent forum in Davos, for all its global pretensions, once again served as a stage on which observers could watch the West’s internal contradictions. At the heart of the dispute is Washington’s desire to secure the strongest possible position in Europe, effectively placing the Western side of it under complete political and economic control.
The US needs this to address two problems. First, the objective contraction of the global space it can dominate. Second, the growing need to redirect resources inward, where domestic tensions are increasingly visible. For the political group that has ruled the US over the past year, internal challenges now outweigh external ones.
Europe, as the closest and most accessible arena, becomes the logical target. Gaining firm control over it would provide the US with stable resources and strategic depth. Recognizing that it can no longer manage most of the world, the US appears to be trying to construct something resembling Orwell’s ‘Oceania’. That’s a consolidated bloc secured by force.
So far, however, the results are ambiguous. What Washington has managed to do is prevent the Europeans from resolving the Ukraine conflict in their own way. They were absent from the recent talks between Russia, the US, and representatives of the Kiev regime in the UAE. Nor did they organize parallel meetings, as they previously attempted to do. Brussels and London seem to be accepting the role of outside observers.
At the same time, the US has been less successful in pushing through its maximalist positions elsewhere. Take Greenland. Even if American military facilities expand and US companies gain broader access to mineral resources, this falls far short of genuine control over the island. The discussion has already shifted from ‘handing Greenland over’ to ‘taking US interests into account’. That’s a very different matter.
This pattern – loud announcements followed by uncertain outcomes – is characteristic of current US foreign policy. The same applies to other supposed ‘victories’. They are tactical successes with unclear long-term consequences.
Russia and China, America’s main competitors, appear to understand this well. They observe the oscillations of US policy calmly, without overreacting to the emotional atmosphere surrounding each new initiative. The international agenda is increasingly filled with bold but often unrealistic ideas, while the practical feasibility of many of them remains questionable.
Consider talk of restoring the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America. This rhetoric overlooks basic realities. The US now has fewer resources to offer its neighbors. Latin American states work with China not out of affinity, but because it is profitable. Pressure from Washington cannot easily replace tangible economic benefits.
Moreover, there is no reason why America’s competitors – Russia, China, and perhaps in time India – would refrain from exploiting the negative consequences of US pressure in the region. Even in its own hemisphere, the idea of a simple ‘sphere of influence’ looks increasingly outdated.
More broadly, Washington’s traditional reliance on force has lost much of its effectiveness in solving major international problems. Force can sometimes resolve issues at the domestic level. In international politics, however, there are few examples of long-term problems being settled that way in recent history.
Europe’s own situation illustrates this. Its current position is largely the outcome of internal conflicts in the first half of the 20th century, not the product of a deliberate American or Soviet ‘conquest’. These Europeans, through their own struggles, shaped the conditions that later limited their autonomy.
The Ukrainian question is another example. Even if the present conflict is frozen or formally settled, genuine reconciliation and sustainable development between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples will require long political work. Force may address immediate issues, but it cannot guarantee lasting peace.
The US understands this at some level, yet it appears unable to identify alternative strategic paths. The problems facing America and the broader Western world have accumulated to such an extent that traditional solutions are either ineffective or too dangerous. A large-scale war is not a viable option. As a result, Washington turns to interim, tactical measures, hoping to manage crises step by step.
This is a fragile basis for foreign policy. Tactical maneuvers may buy time, but they do not resolve underlying contradictions. In the end, structural realities – economic limits, shifting power balances, and the independent interests of other states – will shape the outcome more than even the boldest short-term initiatives.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
Login
