NEWS

Maryna Bondarenko, a 51-year-old journalist, has three packed suitcases in her apartment in Poland, hopeful for the return of peace in Ukraine. She fled Kyiv with her son and mother when Russia invaded on February 24, 2022, expecting to be away for just a month or two. Now, four years later, she continues to work in a Ukrainian language newsroom serving over 1.5 million Ukrainians in Poland. Bondarenko recounts many moments of anticipation for returning home, having even packed her belongings multiple times, convinced the war would soon end.

The ongoing war has resulted in Europe’s largest refugee crisis since World War Two, with over 5 million Ukrainians dispersed across Europe, particularly in Central and Eastern regions. Most refugees are women and children due to martial law in Ukraine that prevents military-age men from leaving. Bondarenko expresses a strong desire to reunite with her husband, Andrij Dudko, who works as a drone operator on the front line. However, the harsh conditions in Kyiv, including devastating air strikes and bitter winter, keep her from returning with her child.

In Poland, large Ukrainian communities have formed in cities like Warsaw and Krakow, but this has sometimes led to tensions with local residents over jobs and welfare benefits. Bondarenko wishes to return home but acknowledges that Ukraine will be significantly changed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hopes that 70% of Ukrainians abroad will go back after the war, but surveys indicate that many want to stay away, particularly among younger generations. Her 11-year-old son, Danylo, finds it hard to remember life in Ukraine and finds Poland more familiar, though he has faced some hostility at school.

Additionally, Iryna Kushnir and Olga Yermolenko, who were high school friends in Kharkiv, found each other again in Istanbul, where they moved at the start of the war. Kushnir had hoped for a quick return home but remains in Turkey, now married and employed as a teacher at Istanbul University, while she left her 19-year-old daughter Sofia to study in Ukraine. Yermolenko works remotely for Ukrainian clients and stays in touch with her mother who still lives in Kharkiv. Despite her efforts to adapt to life in Turkey, she feels caught between her past and an uncertain future. Both women follow the war closely, with Yermolenko expressing fear when seeing news of missile strikes in Kharkiv and making sure to check on her mother’s safety.

With information from Reuters

The Israeli Knesset is pushing through a bill that, if passed, would allow the occupation authorities to legally execute Palestinians. This development has attracted hardly any international attention, but for Palestinians, it is yet another looming horror.

The bill is part of the deal that allowed the formation of Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government in late 2022. It was demanded by Itamar Ben-Gvir, now national security minister, who has led a reign of terror across the West Bank for the past three years.

In November, the bill passed its first reading, and in January, its provisions were revealed: execution carried out within 90 days of sentencing, no appeals, and death by hanging. Palestinians charged with planning attacks or killing Israelis would face the death penalty. Ben-Gvir has repeatedly called for the execution of Palestinians, most recently during his visit to Ofer Prison, where he filmed himself overseeing the abuse of detainees.

That we got to this point is hardly surprising. For decades, the international community has neglected the fate of Palestinian prisoners. In the past two and a half years, there has been almost no global reaction to the mass brutalisation of Palestinians held in Israeli jails with or without charges. Israeli efforts to legalise executions of Palestinian is the logical next step in eliminating the Palestinian question.

‘Prisoners’ or captives?

The use of the term “prisoners” to refer to Palestinians held by Israel is deceptive. It strips this cruelty of its context – the military occupation and colonisation Palestinians live under. Prisoners of war or captives are much more accurate terms. That is because Palestinians are taken away either for resisting the occupation or for no reason at all – for the sake of terrorising their families and communities.

Currently, more than a third of the Palestinians Israel is holding are under “administrative detention” – ie, they are being held without charge – and some are women and children. Palestinians are also “tried” in military courts, which are blatantly biased against the occupied population.

I, myself, was a victim of this system of oppression through unjust detention.

In November 2015, Israeli soldiers burst into my home in Ramallah and took me away.  They tortured and isolated me for weeks without even telling me what I was accused of.

Eventually, they came up with an accusation of “incitement”, for which they did not produce any evidence. They kept me under their “administrative detention”, or what is really an arbitrary arrest. The abuse continued, and during one interrogation session, an Israeli officer threatened me with rape.

They treated me like an animal without rights or legal protection. Representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross were prevented from visiting me. I was released only after I went on a hunger strike for three months and my condition deteriorated to a dangerous level.

This happened to me 10 years ago, long before October 7, 2023. Back then, the international community was turning a blind eye to Israel’s violations of international law through administrative detention and abuse.

After October 7, the conditions in Israeli military prisons worsened, with rampant torture, starvation and medical neglect. At least 88 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli detention since then. The international community has remained silent, issuing an occasional weak condemnation.

Legalising the illegal

Israel’s brutal mistreatment of detained Palestinians is in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which it is a party to. By virtue of being under occupation, Palestinians are considered a protected population and have rights which the Israeli authorities have systematically denied.

Nevertheless, the international community has accepted these flagrant violations. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, the international discourse has transformed Palestinians from an occupied people to threats to Israeli and international security.

Not even the shocking images and testimonies of mass rape at Israeli detention centres managed to overturn this flawed framing.

In this context, the death penalty bill is not an extremist proposal; it fits right into the pattern of the brutalisation of Palestinian detainees.

From the perspective of the Palestinians, this bill is yet another tool of Israeli revenge. If passed, it would spread more fear and further diminish any peaceful resistance against the Israeli settlers’ violent assaults on the Palestinian people and their property.

The bill is also a nightmare for every family that has a member in an Israeli prison. They have already been pushed to the edge by the lack of information about their loved ones since a ban on visiting amid the spike in deaths in detention.

Even more horrific is the prospect that the bill may be applied retroactively. This means anyone with the charges of planning or causing the death of an Israeli could be executed.

There are currently reports in Israeli media that supposedly, the Israeli government is under pressure not to push forward with this law. There have been some suggestions to amend the text to make it more palatable. But we know that Israel will eventually get to executing Palestinians. Just as it has done with other laws, it will deceptively manoeuvre to minimise reactions but still proceed with what it wants to do.

As Israel is well on its way to bulldozing through yet another international legal norm, the most it will likely get is “calls for restraint” or “statements of condemnation”. Such weak rhetoric has enabled its onslaught against international law for the past few decades, and especially during the past two and a half years.

If the international community wants to salvage what is left of the international legal regime and save face, it is time to radically change its approach.

Instead of making weak statements about respect for international law, they must impose sanctions on Israel. Israeli officials who have been accused of committing crimes against Palestinians should not be hosted but held to account.

Only then can there be hope for the safe and peaceful return of all Palestinian prisoners – something that was already agreed upon during the Oslo Accords. And only then can there be hope that Israeli efforts to dismantle international law so it can do as it pleases in Palestine will be stopped.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Kharkiv regional administration head, Oleh Syniehubov, reported that 175 ‘combat clashes’ were recorded over the past 24 hours.

A Russian attack on the Kharkiv region killed two police officers Saturday during an evacuation in the village of Seredniy Burlyk, as Moscow and Kyiv continue trading attacks.

The head of Kharkiv’s regional administration, Oleh Syniehubov, reported that the city and 10 populated areas had been subjected to Russian attacks over the past 24 hours.

In Seredniy Burlyk, five people were also wounded by shelling.

“Over the past 24 hours, 175 combat clashes were recorded. On the South-Slobozhansky direction, the enemy four times stormed the positions of our units in the areas of the populated settlements of Staritsa, Lyman, Vovchansky Khutory, and Krugle,” Syniehubov wrote.

Moreover, three people were injured, including a woman, after a Russian air strike targeted one of the private sectors of Sumy, the National Police of Sumy Oblast reported.

According to the police, the Russian attack destroyed two residential buildings and damaged at least 10 neighbouring houses and a gas pipe.

It added that three people who were injured included two children aged five and 17, as well as a 70-year-old woman who was hospitalised.

Attack on an industrial site

Ukrainian drones targeted an industrial site in Russia’s Udmurt Republic, injuring 11 people, three of whom were hospitalised, according to the local health minister, Sergei Bagin, who issued an update on Telegram.

The head of the Udmurt Republic, Alexander Brechalov, also wrote in a Telegram post that “one of the republic’s facilities was attacked by drones”, adding that injuries and damage were reported.

Brechalov did not elaborate on what the targeted facility was responsible for. However, an unofficial Russian Telegram channel, ASTRA, reported after analysing footage from residents that the strike targeted the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant, a major state defence enterprise.

The Votkinsk factory produces Iskander ballistic missiles, which are often used against Ukraine, as well as nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Ukraine’s military confirmed the attack on the Votkinsk factory and said in a post on Facebook that a “fire was recorded on the territory of the object. The results are getting real.”

The army added that its troops hit a Russian gas processing plant in the Samara region, which caused a fire.

Separately, Russia’s TASS state news agency reported that Ukrainian drones were attempting to ⁠attack production facilities in ⁠Almetyevsk in Russia’s Tatarstan region, citing the head of the city as saying that defence systems were operating.

Russia’s RIA news agency also reported, citing the defence ministry, that Moscow’s forces took control of the village of Karpivka in the eastern Donetsk region of Ukraine.

Who: India vs South Africa
What: T20 World Cup Super Eights
Where: Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, India
When: Sunday, February 22, at 7pm (13:30 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the buildup on Al Jazeera Sport from 10:30 GMT in advance of our text commentary stream.

Defending champions and tournament co-hosts India begin their Super Eights phase on Sunday against the team they defeated in the 2024 final, South Africa.

Both sides stormed through the group stage of the 2026 edition and look heavy favourites to at least reach the semifinals, with the Indians clear favourites to lift the trophy once again.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at the most mouth-watering match-up of two of the heavy contenders for the crown so far at the tournament.

India gunning for South Africa’s top order

India’s bowlers will target early wickets against South Africa, said bowling coach Morne Morkel on Friday.

“We know that their top order gives them that momentum, with Quinton (de Kock) and Aiden (Markram) up front in good form and hitting the ball very well,” said the former South Africa quick bowler Morkel.

“We will definitely put our best foot forward to try and get those early wickets.”

How did India reach the T20 World Cup Super Eights?

India stormed their group to claim top spot with four wins from four. A slightly nervous start against USA was followed by a thumping 93-run win against Namibia.

The game everyone had their eyes on was the latest pairing with rivals Pakistan, which resulted in a 61-run win, while the final game saw the Netherlands fall only 17 runs short of their 194 target.

How did South Africa reach the T20 World Cup Super Eights?

South Africa opened their tournament with a 57-run win against Canada, but needed a Super Over to confirm their win against Afghanistan in their second match.

New Zealand were given a thumping by the Proteas, who claimed a seven-wicket win to confirm their passage to the Super Eights with a game to spare, before completing the group with a six-wicket win against the UAE.

India expect Abhishek to return to form soon

While Markram’s South Africa have looked strong in all departments, tournament favourites India have not enjoyed batting consistency, with opener Abhishek Sharma out of form. Morkel, though, predicts he will be back among the runs soon.

Morkel said the left-hander, who has recorded three consecutive ducks, was just one innings away from getting back in the zone.

“Absolutely no discussion in our team group about that,” said Morkel about Abhishek’s failure to score in any of the matches yet.

“He is a world-class player. We are going to a very important phase of the World Cup now and I am sure he is going to deliver.

“I am pretty sure he is hitting the ball in the nets.

“It is just a matter of getting the start and getting the innings going.”

Can South Africa be the team to stop India at the T20 World Cup?

Morkel acknowledged South Africa have been one of the form teams of the T20 World Cup so far.

“They are a team that’s full of confidence,” said Morkel.

“They have got guys at the top who are in form. In terms of weaknesses, there aren’t many.”

South Africa have also shown guts when needed, coming out victorious after two nerve-shredding super overs against Afghanistan.

“For us it comes down, on the day, to how well we execute with the bat and the ball,” said Morkel of defending champions India.

“It’s going to be world-class players against each other. It is going to be a mouth-watering thing.”

What is India’s record in T20 World Cup cricket?

Not only are India the defending champions after their victory against South Africa at the 2024 edition, but they are also the joint-record winners of the T20 World Cup.

The Indian side won their inaugural event in 2007, beating Pakistan in the final, but that made for a long wait for their second win at the last edition.

England and the West Indies have both also recorded two tournament wins.

What is South Africa’s record in T20 World Cup cricket?

South Africa still await their first T20 World Cup title. In fact, the wait goes on for the Proteas to lift any trophy at a major ICC tournament.

Their seven-run defeat at the hands of India in the 2024 edition was their first appearance in a final of either a T20 World Cup or a 50-over Cricket World Cup.

South Africa make surprise wholesale T20 changes for future tour

South Africa ‌have named a much-changed squad that includes five uncapped ⁠players for ⁠their five-match Twenty20 tour of New Zealand next month, leaving behind most of the team that have ⁠qualified for the Super Eights at the ongoing World Cup in India and Sri Lanka.

Batters Connor Esterhuizen, Dian Forrester ⁠and Jordan Hermann, all-rounder Eathan Bosch and teenage seamer Nqobani Mokoena will all hope to make their international debuts on the tour.

Hermann is the younger brother of Rubin, who is also in ‌the squad and has been capped in One Day Internationals and T20 matches for South Africa, while Bosch is the younger sibling of Corbin, who has impressed at the World Cup.

The side will be captained by spinner Keshav Maharaj, with a return for seamers Gerald Coetzee, ⁠Lutho Sipamla and Ottneil Baartman.

Three players from the current World Cup squad will tour: Maharaj, spinner George Linde and all-rounder Jason Smith.

“With this series taking place directly after the ⁠T20 World Cup, the majority of that squad will return home, which creates a ⁠great opportunity for this group of ⁠players to step into the international environment and show what they’re about at this level,” South Africa coach Shukri Conrad said.

The five-match series will be played ‌between March 15 and 25.

Head-to-head

This will be the 36th meeting between the sides in T20 internationals. India have won 21 of the matches, while South Africa have claimed victory on 13 occasions with one no result/abandonment.

Predicted India team:

Ishan Kishan (wk), Abhishek Sharma, Tilak Varma, Suryakumar Yadav (c), Hardik Pandya, Shivam Dube, Rinku Singh, Axar Patel, Varun Chakaravarthy, Jasprit Bumrah, Arshdeep Singh

Predicted South Africa team:

Quinton de Kock (wk), Aiden Markram (c), Dewald Brevis, Tristan Stubbs, David Miller, Ryan Rickelton, Marco Jansen, George Linde, Kagiso Rabada, Anrich Nortje, Keshav Maharaj

Hundreds of US troops have been pulled out of the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, The New York Times reported Friday, citing anonymous Pentagon sources.

The report also said forces have been evacuated from Bahrain, where the US Navy’s 5th Fleet is based.

American forces remain stationed at bases in Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

The withdrawal is being interpreted as a precautionary measure amid rising tensions about a possible US. attack on Iran, with Tehran expected to respond by striking American forces in the region.

The US military’s Central Command, which covers Iran and much of the surrounding region, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a letter Thursday to the UN secretary-general, the head of Iran’s mission to the UN said if Iran were attacked, then “all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate targets,” and the “United States would bear full and direct responsibility for any unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences.”

Al Udeid is the largest US military base in the Middle East, hosting 10,000 troops.

READ: Top Russian diplomat reaffirms support for negotiation process amid US-Iran tensions

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian government has again blamed “terrorists” for the killings of thousands during last month’s nationwide protests after United States President Donald Trump and human rights experts weighed in.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Saturday that the government has released a list of 3,117 people, whom he described as “victims of recent terrorist operation”, including about 200 security personnel.

“If anyone disputes accuracy of our data, please share any evidence,” the diplomat, who has previously stated that 690 people on the list were “terrorists” armed and funded by the US and Israel, wrote on X.

Araghchi’s comments come hours after the US president told reporters that 32,000 people were killed during the protests, adding that “the people of Iran have lived in hell” under the theocratic establishment.

The Iranian foreign minister has also been speaking with multiple US media outlets to advocate for a “fair” agreement with Washington over Iran’s nuclear programme.

The threat of war looms increasingly large over the country and potentially the region, with Serbia on Saturday becoming the latest country to call on all its citizens to immediately leave Iran.

‘Majority of those killed are ordinary people’

Mai Sato, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, has said more than 20,000 civilians may have been killed, but information remains limited amid heavy internet filtering by the state, six weeks after a nationwide communications blackout was imposed.

The US-based HRANA says it has documented more than 7,000 people killed during the nationwide protests, and is investigating nearly 12,000 more cases.

Sato was among 30 special rapporteurs and international human rights experts who signed a joint statement on Friday calling on Iranian authorities to fully disclose the fate and whereabouts of tens of thousands arrested, forcibly disappeared or missing in the aftermath of the nationwide protests, and to halt all related death sentences and executions.

“The true scale of the violent crackdown on Iranian protesters remains impossible to determine at this point,” the experts said. “The discrepancy between official figures and grassroots estimates only deepens the anguish of families searching for their loved ones and displays a profound disregard for human rights and accountability.”

The international experts added that “the vast majority of those detained or killed are ordinary people, including children, from all provinces and diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, as well as Afghan nationals”, in addition to lawyers representing protesters, medical professionals who treated the wounded, journalists and writers, artists and human rights defenders.

Iranian state media were accused of regularly broadcasting what the experts said are “widely regarded as forced confessions”.

The latest such incident came on Saturday, when the official Mizan news agency of the Iranian judiciary released footage from a court session for three men who said they regret setting fire to motorcycles, a mosque and copies of the Quran in Tehran during the unrest.

Also on Saturday, some students in Tehran and across the country returned to university campuses for the first time, as authorities kept universities closed and took some classes and exams online in the aftermath of the protests.

In Tehran’s Sharif University, one of the most prestigious in the country, students clashed after two separate demonstrations. Videos circulating online showed students shouting “dishonourables” at a group of paramilitary Basij students affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who chanted back in favour of the establishment.

The clashes come amid a heightened security atmosphere in Iranian schools and university dormitories. Teachers and schools in a number of cities near the capital went on strike last week to protest the killing of at least 230 children and teenagers, as well as increased presence of security forces in classrooms.

Families dance in defiant grief

The Iranian government held mourning events on Tuesday and Wednesday in Tehran, with some officials in attendance.

Culture Minister Reza Salehi-Amiri announced on Saturday that the government has decided to call the upcoming ceremonies around Newroz, the new Iranian year starting in late March, an exercise in “unity and empathy” with the aim of “getting past the grief” of thousands killed.

But numerous families have been holding defiant commemoration events of their own over the past week to mark 40 days since the killing of their loved ones during the anti-establishment protests.

Footage from many ceremonies across the country this week showed family members, and large crowds gathered to support them, proudly holding up images of those killed and celebrating their shortened lives.

Many chose to clap, play traditional drums and cymbals, and even dance in symbolic shows of resistance and defiance that heavily clash with religious rituals favoured by the theocratic state.

“May your pen break, O fate, if you do not write about that which befell us,” the father of Abolfazl MirAeez, a 33-year-old killed in the city of Gorgan in the northern province of Golestan, told crowds gathered at a ceremony on Thursday.

“My son was neither a rioter, nor an embezzler nor an aghazadeh [child of an elite]. He was the son of a farmer.”

Follow our live build-up, with toss and team news, ahead of our text commentary stream of the Super Eights opener.

Welcome to Bunker Talk. This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn’t cover. We can also talk about the stuff we did or whatever else grabs your interest. In other words, it’s an off-topic thread.

This week’s second caption reads:

WASSENAAR, NETHERLANDS – MAY 5: The remains of a communication room are visible as the Seyss-Inquart bunker opens its doors to the public on Liberation Day for a special “Freedom Meal” on May 5, 2025 in Wassenaar, Netherlands. The holiday marks the Netherlands’ liberation from Nazi occupation 80 years ago. The bunker is named after Arthur Seyss-Inquart, a prominent Nazi official who served as Reich Commissioner during the German occupation of the Netherlands.He was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials and subsequently executed. After the war, the bunker, concealed beneath a structure resembling a traditional Dutch farmhouse, was repurposed by the Dutch armed forces during the Cold War and served as a site for NATO military exercises. (Photo by Pierre Crom/Getty Images)

Also, a reminder:

Prime Directives!

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

Caracas, February 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration is forcing all royalty, tax, and dividend payments from Venezuelan oil production be paid into accounts managed by Washington.

The mandate reinforces the White House’s control over Venezuelan crude export revenues in the wake of the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, as well as a naval blockade imposed in December.

The US Treasury Department updated its FAQ section on February 18 to clarify conditions on recently issued sanctions waivers allowing expanded participation in Venezuela’s oil sector to Western corporations.

Under the licenses, only “routine payments of local taxes, permits, and fees” to Venezuelan authorities are permitted.

“Other payments, including royalties, fixed per-barrel production levies, or federal taxes to blocked persons, such as the Venezuelan government or (state oil company) PDVSA, must be made into the Foreign Government Deposit Fund,” the text read.

The acting Rodríguez administration has yet to comment on the new restrictions. 

Since January, Washington has imposed control over Venezuelan crude exports, with proceeds deposited in a US-administered account in Qatar. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced recently that funds will now be deposited directly in a US Treasury account. Senior administration officials have stated that the arrangement gives the White House “leverage” to condition Venezuelan government policies, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Caracas must submit a “budget request” to access its own oil revenues.

At least US $500 million, out of an initial deal estimated at $2 billion, have been returned to Venezuela and offered by banks in foreign exchange auctions. Venezuelan authorities have also reported the import of medicines and medical equipment from US manufacturers using “unblocked funds.”

On Thursday, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 50A allowing select firms to conduct transactions and operations related to hydrocarbon projects with PDVSA or any other Venezuelan public entity. The document mirrors General License 50 issued on February 13 but added French firm Maurel & Prom to a list including BP, Chevron, Eni, Repsol, and Shell.

Maurel & Prom’s main project in the Caribbean nation is a minority stake in the Petroregional del Lago joint venture, which currently produces 21,000 barrels per day (bpd). The company’s executives recently held a meeting with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as part of Caracas’ efforts to secure foreign investment.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has issued several licenses to boost US and European involvement in the Venezuelan energy sector, with imports of diluents, inputs and technology now allowed. General License 49, issued on February 13, demands that companies apply for a special license before striking production and investment deals with Venezuela.

The US Treasury issued sanctions waivers while maintaining existing coercive measures against the Venezuelan oil industry in place, including financial sanctions against PDVSA. The licenses likewise block any transactions with companies from Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

The selective flexibilization of sanctions followed the Venezuelan National Assembly’s approval of a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law. The reform grants private corporations expanded control over operations and sales, while opening the possibility for disputes to be taken to external arbitration.

The reformed law also allows the Venezuelan executive to arbitrarily reduce royalties and a new “integrated tax,” capped at 30 and 15 percent, respectively. The executive is likewise entitled to grant reductions to the 50 percent income tax set for the oil industry if deemed necessary for projects to be “internationally competitive.”

According to US-set conditions and the reformed law, minority partners such as Repsol are authorized to sell crude from Venezuelan joint ventures before depositing the owed royalty and tax amounts, as well as dividends belonging to PDVSA, to US Treasury-designated accounts.

The initial crude sales as part of the Trump-imposed arrangement were conducted via commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura, which lifted cargoes at Venezuelan ports before re-selling them to final customers. However, according to Reuters, US-based refiners including Phillips66 and CITGO are looking to secure crude directly from Venezuela to maximize profits.

CITGO, a subsidiary of PDVSA, is close to being taken over by vulture fund Elliott Management following a court-mandated auction to satisfy creditor claims against the South American country. The company has been managed by boards appointed by the US-backed Venezuelan opposition since 2019.

US President Trump’s announcement of the creation of the so-called “Peace Council,” involving several countries, including Morocco, sparks a deep debate that goes beyond the diplomatic event itself. It addresses the core of the international order established after World War II. The issue isn’t only about establishing a new international body but also raises an implicit question: Is the United Nations still capable of managing global peace and security, or are we entering a phase in which alternatives are being sought?

From this perspective, the Peace Council becomes a political project par excellence, reflecting shifts in the American vision of the role of international institutions and revealing a structural crisis within the United Nations system.

First: The Peace Council… Read for the idea, not the structure.

Internationally and institutionally, the Peace Council cannot be considered a direct alternative to the United Nations. The latter is grounded in an international charter, legal legitimacy, and semi-inclusive membership, whereas the Peace Council remains a selective framework, initially limited in membership, and its legitimacy is based, in particular, on the political will of the countries involved, foremost among them the United States. However, attention to this formal aspect may overlook the substance of the matter. The true value of the Peace Council lies not in its organizational and administrative structure, but in the political message it carries: explicitly questioning the United Nations’ ability to perform its historical function, offering an alternative grounded in effectiveness rather than consensus, and prioritizing alliance over inclusiveness. In other words, we are facing a shift in how international peace is managed, not just a new institutional addition.

Second: Why does the US administration believe that the United Nations has failed? Washington’s view is rooted in the strong belief that the United Nations has faced significant challenges: it has become hostage to the veto powers within the Security Council; it struggles to enforce its strategic decisions in major international conflicts; and it has shifted from being a mechanism for resolution to more of a platform for political battles. This perspective is not merely popular opinion; it is shared by many international relations scholars, who argue that the UN has not evolved sufficiently to address emerging global and regional issues, including unconventional conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, shifting global power dynamics, and a waning collective commitment to international law. In this context, the Peace Council is regarded by the United States as a tool to address what it perceives as a long-standing institutional paralysis.

Third: The Peace Council… Is it truly an alternative or just a parallel path?

When we look at international relations realistically, we usually consider three levels: 1. Legal level: The Peace Council can’t replace the United Nations when it comes to legitimacy grounded in international law. 2. Practical level: The Council aims to fill a real gap in conflict management, especially in cases where the United Nations has struggled to resolve or contain issues. 3. Symbolic and expressive level: This is where the concern grows, as the Council challenges the UN’s exclusive claim to legitimacy in the “peace industry.” In the end, it’s not just about being an alternative or a supporting body. It’s more like a parallel system that could, over time, become a real competitor if it gains more influence and members.

Fourth: The American Dimension… Redefining International Leadership.

The creation of the Peace Council aligns with Trump’s broader perspective on international relations, emphasizing three key points: reducing dependence on multilateral organizations, strengthening alliances, and shifting decision-making authority to major global powers. From this standpoint, the Council is less about promoting peace and more about reshaping America’s influence and alliances, especially in a world where Washington is reluctant to bear the costs of a global order it cannot fully control. This reflects a shift away from seeking international legitimacy toward a focus on “realistic legitimacy,” in which institutions are judged more by their results than by strict adherence to rules.

Fifth: Morocco and the Peace Council… a strategically chosen location

The Kingdom of Morocco’s decision to join the Peace Council should not be seen as a departure from the United Nations, but rather as a strategic move in its diplomatic efforts to diversify its international partnerships. Morocco maintains strong institutional ties with the UN, actively participates in peacekeeping missions, and is also eager to expand its presence in new global initiatives. By joining the Peace Council, Morocco positions itself favorably in discussions on security and stability, gaining an influential role in shaping international approaches to conflict management. This move also helps to reinforce Morocco’s image as a responsible actor that avoids relying solely on a single framework for its diplomatic and security strategies.

Sixth: Is the time of the United Nations over?

The prediction that the United Nations mission is coming to an end may be premature, but it still carries weight. The key point is that the UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, not one of existence. It continues to exist, but it can no longer handle alone a world marked by multiple power centers, rising complex conflicts, and waning trust in collective action. So, the Peace Council isn’t signaling its demise but rather highlighting the deepening challenges facing the traditional international system.

In the end, the Peace Council put together by the Trump administration isn’t officially replacing the United Nations yet, but it definitely marks a shift—signaling that we’re moving from one phase to another. We’re entering a time when peace and security are handled through selective alliances and initiatives driven by major powers, rather than through large umbrella organizations. The big question is, will this new approach bring about more effective peace, or will it make the world less legitimate and more fragile? The answer won’t be found just in the data but in how this new model actually plays out on the ground.

Nigerian lawmaker reports ‘at least 50 people dead’ after attack as list of missing is still being compiled.

Gunmen killed at least 50 people and abducted women and children in an overnight assault on a village in northwestern Nigeria’s Zamfara State, authorities and residents said.

The attack started late on Thursday night and continued into Friday morning in Tungan Dutse village in the Bukkuyum area of Zamfara when armed men arrived on motorcycles and began setting fire to buildings and abducting residents.

“They have been moving from one village to another … leaving at least 50 people dead,” said Hamisu A Faru, a lawmaker representing Bukkuyum South.

Faru, speaking to the Reuters news agency by phone on Friday, said the number of people abducted remained unclear as local officials were still compiling lists of the missing.

Residents say warning signs were visible before the attack.

Abdullahi Sani, 41, said villagers alerted security forces after spotting more than 150 motorcycles carrying armed men a day earlier, but no action was taken.

“No one slept yesterday; we are all in pain,” Sani said, adding that three members of his family were killed in the attack.

Areas of Nigeria’s north and west continue to grapple with overlapping security threats, including armed criminal gangs and rebel fighters.

Just last week, at least 46 people were killed in raids in the Borgu area of northwest Niger State. The deadliest assault occurred in the village of Konkoso, where at least 38 residents were shot or had their throats cut, according to reports.

The crisis has drawn increased international involvement.

Nigeria recently expanded security cooperation with the United States after President Donald Trump accused the country of failing to halt the killing of Christians and threatened military intervention.

On December 25, the US launched air strikes on the northern state of Sokoto, conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities.

Earlier this week, Nigeria’s military confirmed the arrival of 100 US soldiers tasked with training local forces.

Samaila Uba, spokesperson for Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters, said the US troops would offer “technical support” and “intelligence sharing” to help combat “terrorist organisations”, along with “associated equipment”.

He stressed the US personnel would not engage directly in combat and would share technical expertise under Nigerian command.

Brazil’s President Lula says fate of Venezuelan president should be determined by the ‘people of Venezuela’ and ‘not by foreign interference’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro should face trial, but that it should take place in a Venezuelan court, rather than in the United States, where he is currently being held after his abduction by the US military.

“I believe that if Maduro has to be trialled, he has to be trialled in his country, not trialled abroad,” Lula said in an interview, emphasising that “what matters now is to re-establish democracy in Venezuela”.

“It has to be solved by the people of Venezuela, and not by foreign interference,” said Lula, citing a history of US-backed dictatorships in Latin America, including Chile, Argentina and Uruguay.

“We cannot accept that a head of state of one country could invade another country and capture the president,” the Brazilian leader added.

Lula’s comments come as Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, has been working to release hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers jailed during Maduro’s residency, which began in 2013.

The Brazilian has openly criticised the abduction of ⁠Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation ordered by US President Donald Trump on January 3.

Maduro was flown to New York after his abduction in a bloody night raid on Caracas. He has since been accused by US authorities of planning to transport drugs to the US alongside other charges.

The US government’s own data shows that Venezuela is not among the world’s major drug producers; however, Trump administration officials have accused Maduro and others of working with the region’s largest drug trafficking groups, including in Colombia and Mexico.

While the Trump administration has claimed that its military buildup near Venezuela and maritime blockade of the country were focused on combating drug trafficking, Trump has laid claim to Venezuelan oil reserves since removing Maduro.

Trump has also invited US oil companies to exploit Venezuela’s oil and said he wants proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States”.

Almost fifty years after the revolution in 1979 that changed the political landscape of Iran, Iran is at the crossroads of its history, which is defined by economic pressures, social pressure, and the changing geopolitical environment. The Islamic Republic was constructed as a combination of revolutionary ideology, anti-Western response, and promise of social justice. In the present day, although the ideological framework is still maintained, the sustainability of that framework is being strained increasingly by the structural economic pressures of the day, generational shifts, and changing regional hegemony.

On the economic front, Iran is continually constrained by global sanctions and inefficiency in its structure. Withdrawal by the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the reimposition of massive sanctions in 2018 have cut off much of the oil exports of Iranian oil, banking, and foreign investment flows. The country works well under its economic potential despite the fact that Tehran has been able to sustain limited oil sales, especially through discounted sales to China and through surrogate routes. The inflation rate has been above 40 percent during the recent years, the Iranian rial is falling drastically, and unemployment among the youth is also a burning issue. It is the middle and lower classes that are directly impacted by these economic pressures and that pose a legitimacy challenge that cannot be solved only through rhetorical means of revolution.

The internal landscape is a manifestation of long-term frustration. Frequent demonstrations regarding fuel prices, the state of the economy, and social liberation indicate the growing disparity between state discourses of resistance and the realities that the citizens encounter. The newer generation born after the revolution has lost any connection with the revolutionary memory of 1979 and perceives governance less as ideologically symbolic and more based on economic performance and individual opportunity. The policy employed by the state has been based on the repressed handling of dissent, which consists of the limitation of the mobilization of protests and the prevention of the collapse of the system. Although this is a way of maintaining short-term stability, it does not deal with structural issues like brain drain, capital flight, falling purchasing power, and diminished faith in long-term economic potential.

The main political quandary is consequently a legitimacy transformation quandary. In the past, the Islamic Republic gained legitimacy through revolutionary mobilization, religious control, and confrontation with the external hostilities, especially the United States and Israel. Nevertheless, the contemporary politics demands more and more performance-based legitimacy—providing economic growth, stability, and material changes in the quality of life. The conflict between ideological stability and realistic adjustment is the characteristic of the contemporary crossroads of Iran.

Iran is geopolitically a country that exists in the complex web of pressures. The United States is still the main external agent, which affects the Tehran strategic calculations. The policy of Washington is alternating between the engagement of diplomacy and coercion, yet the ultimate goal is the same as it is: avoiding the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons competence and reducing its impact in the region. In Tehran, it will need negotiations that will help soften sanctions and stabilize the economy, but any deal will not collapse under the perception of submission over matters of sovereignty, ballistic missile potential, and relations with the region.

Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile programs in Iran are considered to be existential threats to Israel. The shadow struggle that has been there for a long time, including cyber attacks, precision attacks, espionage, and proxy wars, has heightened strategic mistrust. The intensity of this rivalry is shown by the fact that Israel has been carrying out its operations within Iran and against Iran-related targets in Syria. Any intensification would attract Gulf states and disrupt world energy supply, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a choke point in the oil markets of the world. Even minor confrontations will have a global economic impact, as Iran is strategically placed in the important maritime paths.

The regional policy of Iran has focused on the establishment of strategic depth by alliance and coalition with non-state actors and supportive governments within Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This system becomes a deterrence and leverage factor, making it difficult to engage in a direct military strike on the territory of Iran. Geostrategically, this doctrine of forward defense has enhanced the bargaining power of Iran. But it is likewise causing tension with the other Arab countries and creating the impression of destabilization in the region. The recent diplomatic thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which was facilitated by China, shows that both sides noticed that continued confrontation is expensive in terms of both economics and strategy.

Iran is geographically at one of the most strategic points of Eurasia. It connects the Persian Gulf with Central Asia, the Caucasus, and South Asia. The International North-South Transport Corridor is one of the major trade routes that can make Iran a major transit route between India and Russia and Europe. This geo-economic location, in theory, has colossal prospects of being rolled into new multipolar trade systems. Sanctions and political isolation in reality prevent full access to the global markets. The latter can be said to be strategic convergence, as Iran was brought closer to Russia, especially after the war in Ukraine, as a result of Western pressure. But such convergence also subjects Tehran to secondary sanctions and makes it less flexible in its East-West balancing.

Iran—Concerns about the nuclear problem continue to be the major pivot of the external affairs. Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is nonviolent and has indicated that it is free for verification. But the Western governments require more guarantees and wider negotiations, which can feature missile capabilities and regional operations. It is possible that a strictly limited nuclear deal will minimize the risks of immediate proliferation and alleviate the economic pressure, which might make the Iranian internal situation more stable. Nonetheless, such a deal may not help solve any underlying rivalries between the region but could simply freeze the situation unless there are larger regional de-escalation mechanisms. On the other hand, the inability to find any solution will lead to the further worsening of the economy and the possible military clash.

In a more geo-strategically global understanding, the balance of power between the Middle East and the rest of the world will be influenced by the course of Iran. In case Tehran manages to negotiate the lifting of sanctions and turns in the direction of economic integration with the Gulf states, it will be able to shift from the resistance-focused model to the development-oriented state step by step. This would strengthen the stability of the region, safeguard the energy security, and minimize the motivation to intervene. It would also make the regional rivalry be based more on economic rivalry rather than military rivalry, especially in terms of infrastructure rivalry, trade corridor rivalry, and energy market rivalry.

Nevertheless, should the negotiations fail and the confrontation escalate, Iran might apply the asymmetric deterrence further, increasing the range of its missiles and extending proxy bases. That way would strengthen the preemptive stance of Israel and increase the presence of the US military in the Gulf. The escalation would disorient shipping routes, exert more volatility on oil prices, and disintegrate the security infrastructure in the region. To the surrounding Arab nations, which require diversifying and changing their economies, new warfare would destroy investment conditions and long-term strategies.

On the domestic front, economic resilience is what will sustain the strategic position of Iran. The political principle of endurance can only be stretched so far as inflation undermines the wages and the depreciation of currency undermines savings. This needs structural changes: enhancing transparency, welcoming foreign investment, and a non-hydrocarbon economy, and empowering the business sector. Foreign policy victories cannot entirely offset its dissatisfaction at home without economic change.

After all, the crossroads of Iran is not only ideological but also structural. The state has to strike a compromise between sovereignty and economic need, deterrence and diplomacy, and ideological identity and practical governance. Its strategic location means that its decisions will have a far-reaching impact, not only across its frontiers, but also on the energy markets of the world, the great-power politics, and the new security order of the Middle East. The future of Iran becoming a development-oriented regional power with full membership in multipolar networks or being a sanction-bound resistance state under continuous pressure will not only dictate the internal stability of the country but also the geopolitical orientation of a long-time conflict-ridden and strategically divided region.

The U.S. Marine Corps is aiming to acquire a new single “capability” to fill gaps left by the retirement of its AV-8B Harrier jump jets, AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters, and legacy F/A-18C/D Hornet fighters. Dubbed the Future Attack Strike (FASt) plan, the current vision is to have the ability to attack targets kinetically and non-kinetically, and to work together with future uncrewed aircraft.

The first public mention of FASt appears to have come in the most recent annual Marine Corps Aviation Plan, released earlier this month. At this early stage, the Expeditionary and Maritime Aviation-Advanced Development Team (XMA-ADT), part of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), has been leading the work to refine the FASt plan.

“FASt capability is being developed to provide long range fires and Close Air Support (CAS) to the ground force and to be a Joint Force kill web enabler. FASt continues to evolve through Weapons Integration Risk Reduction (WIRR) trade studies to drive innovation and experimentation,” per the 2026 Marine Aviation Plan. “Conceptual solutions are being analyzed to inform requirements and acquisition pathways. Enhanced capabilities such as kinetic/non-kinetic launched effects, long-range precision fires, advanced survivability, DI [digital interoperability], and EW [electronic warfare] will be further developed.”

“Future Attack Strike (FASt) is a capability being developed to fill a Marine Aviation attack & strike mission gap posed by sundowning F/A-18, AV-8B, AH-1Z, & UH-1Y aircraft, with an initial operating capability being fielded in the mid-2040s,” a Marine Corps spokesperson also told TWZ directly after we reached out for more information. “FASt will employ kinetic and non-kinetic weapons, be capable of Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), be interoperable with the Joint Force to close long-range kill chains in contested environments, and deliver offensive air support to affect all-domain threats.”

It should be noted here that the previously stated plan for replacing the AV-8B and F/A-18C/D fleets has been the acquisition of a mixture of short takeoff and vertical landing capable F-35B and carrier-based F-35C variants of the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter. We will come back to this later on.

Though not explicitly stated, supplanting the fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters mentioned above with a single platform would require a short, if not vertical takeoff and landing (S/VTOL) capable design. The Marine Corps has said in the past that it is at least monitoring U.S. Special Operations Command’s progress with its High-Speed Vertical Takeoff and Landing (HSVTOL) program. HSTVOL is paired with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Speed and Runway Independent Technologies (SPRINT) effort.

Last year, DARPA selected Bell over Boeing subsidiary Aurora Flight Sciences to move to the next phase of SPRINT. The core goal of SPRINT is to demonstrate a concept for a VTOL aircraft that can cruise at speeds between 400 and 450 knots. Bell’s design centers on wingtip proprotors with blades that fold away after the transition from hover to level flight, as you can read more about here.

HSVTOL Sled Transition Test

HSVTOL and SPRINT have both focused heavily on designs capable of transporting cargo and personnel, but Bell says its design concept is scalable. The company has shown renderings of multiple crewed and uncrewed variations, including types that could be configured for missions more in line with FASt.

The Marine Corps could look to other emerging S/VTOL designs for FASt, as well. The possibility of a Marine Corps derivative of Bell’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor, which serves as the basis for the U.S. Army’s new MV-75, has been put forward in the past. The company’s uncrewed V-247 Vigilant tiltrotor was aimed originally at a Marine requirement, as well. FASt could also end up intertwined with a separate Marine Corps plan to replace its MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors, currently called the Next Generation Assault Support (NGAS) platform.

Speed and range, on top of runway independence, will be key considerations for the Marines when it comes to FASt. The service’s current core vision for future conflicts centers on hub-and-spoke-type expeditionary and distributed deployments with forces positioned at far-flung sites across a broad area. Those units are expected to be able to rapidly deploy and redeploy from one operating location to another, which could be within range of enemy standoff strikes, to disrupt an opponent’s targeting cycles and reduce vulnerability. Island-hopping in the Pacific during a high-end fight with China is a principal scenario.

This all has raised questions, in particular, about the future utility of slower, lower-flying, and shorter-ranged helicopters like the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, and, by extension, how to fill the gaps in close air support and other capabilities they provide. The Marine Corps has already slashed the size of its AH-1Z and UH-1Y fleets, but is also taking steps to ensure the continued relevance of the remaining helicopters. This includes the acquisition of a new standoff strike capability for the AH-1Z in the form of L3Harris’ Red Wolf miniature cruise missile. The UH-1Y is regularly used as an electronic warfare platform when paired with the podded Intrepid Tiger II system, and other future roles for those armed utility helicopters are still being explored.

AH-1/UH-1 “investments also inform Future Attack Strike (FASt) capability development, which will help fill critical gaps in Marine Aviation’s future ACE [air combat element of the Marine Air Ground Task Force],” the 2026 Marine Aviation Plan notes.

“Coming back to that interoperability, it’s multiple pathways and multiple waveforms. I don’t think we say kill chains anymore, because it’s not a linkage of nodes, it’s a linkage of webs,” Col. Nathan Marvel, then commander of Marine Aircraft Group 39 (MAG-39) based at Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton in California, told TWZ in an interview back in 2023. “We may very well be an enabler where you’re pushing data through us via voice and or data, and we may very well be the end of that kill web or that kill chain enabler as well. We may tell someone where something is so they can go kill it or we maintain custody, or someone may tell us where something is so we can go kill it like we have traditionally done. Interoperability is a huge focus for us.”

Col. Marvel had outlined a case to us for the continued relevance of the AH-1Z, as well as the UH-1Y, in a future major fight in the Pacific, which you can find here. Much of what he detailed at the time is in line with how the Marine Corps is now talking about FASt.

“We are going to be able to carry a potpourri of weapons. It would not be unheard of to hang some exquisite fixed-wing fighter weapons on the wing-stub of a Cobra and bring that to a fight,” Marvel also told us last year. “It may be a loitering weapon or maybe an exquisite pod that does only certain things that we’re used to seeing on fixed-wing aircraft and bring that to the fight and put that down at the rotor wing level to enable the battlespace commander and the maneuver element commander to do things that they may or may not have thought they could do before. So that’s kind of where we are with capabilities buildup.”

The expectation that FASt will fill gaps left by the retirement of the AV-8B and the F/A-18C/D may also point to new interest in a future high-low capability mix. As mentioned, the Marine’s primary plan has been to replace both of these types with variants of the F-35, and this looks to still be the case, at least in part. However, FASt could offer a valuable lower-tier companion to the F-35s, which are highly capable, but also very expensive and complicated to operate and maintain, especially in more austere locales. Just in general, the Marines have many day-to-day tactical aviation requirements that do not demand a very costly high-end fighter, as well. TWZ has highlighted the value of high-low mixes in the context of future U.S. Air Force tactical force structure plans on several occasions in the past.

F-35B

With the explicit mention of MUM-T capabilities for FASt, that platform also looks set to benefit from Marine efforts now to acquire fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones. The first Marine CCAs will be variants of Kratos’ stealthy XQ-58 Valkryie configured for operations from traditional runways, as well as at least runway-independent launches, as you can learn more about here.

The service is also looking at future ‘spiral’ development cycles that could result in purchases of different uncrewed aircraft designs. The Corps just recently announced plans to use General Atomics’ YFQ-42A, one of two drones now in development under the first phase of the U.S. Air Force’s CCA program, as at least a surrogate for future uncrewed tactical aviation capabilities.

It is possible that FASt could turn out to be a family of systems that itself includes uncrewed capabilities in the end, as well. Shield AI has notably been describing its runway-independent X-BAT stealthy jet-powered ‘autonomous fighter,’ which TWZ was first to report on last October, in terms that could be of interest to the Marines for this emerging requirement.

X-BAT: Earth Is Our Runway

All this being said, the 2040s timeline outlined for FASt now means that this platform, however it might evolve, will not be an immediate replacement for the AV-8s or the F/A-18C/Ds. Marine Harriers are set to fly their last sorties in June of this year. The service’s goal now is for the legacy Hornets to be retired around the end of the decade. The AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys are currently expected to serve into the 2040s.

Regardless, the vision the Marines have laid out for FASt points to a very different-looking tactical aviation ecosystem now on the service’s horizon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

These are the key developments from day 1,458 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is where things stand on Saturday, February 21:

Fighting

• The death toll from a Russian attack on a warehouse in Malynivka in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region rose to three after rescuers found two more bodies under the rubble, the State Emergency Service said on the Telegram messaging app.
• A Russian drone attack killed two police officers as they were on their way to evacuate residents near the village of Serednii Burluk in Kharkiv, the National Police of Ukraine said on Telegram.
• Russian forces launched a ballistic missile and 128 drones towards Ukraine overnight on Thursday, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence said on Facebook. Ukrainian forces shot down 107 of the drones, the ministry added.
• Russian attacks caused dozens of injuries and damage to homes and infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities in Ukraine’s Poltava region, according to the country’s state-owned oil and gas company Naftogaz.
• Russian forces attacked Komyshuvas in Ukraine’s Zaporizhia region with guided bombs, causing a fire in residential buildings that injured a 22-year-old woman and a 27-year-old man, regional governor Ivan Fedorov said on Telegram.
• In Russia, two people were killed and three were wounded in a Ukrainian drone attack on a car in the rural Maksimovskoye settlement located on the front line in the Belgorod region, regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov wrote on Telegram.
• The attack was one of several by Ukrainian forces across Belgorod, including another strike that killed a man in the village of Pochayevo, the regional emergency task force wrote on Telegram.
• Alexander Bogomaz, the governor of Russia’s Bryansk region, said Ukrainian forces attacked a hospital in the village of Voronok with drones, though no casualties were reported.
• A “significant portion” of the northwest of Russian-occupied Zaporizhia was left without electricity due to “a massive attack” by Ukrainian forces on the region’s electric grid, Russia’s TASS state news agency reported, citing a Russian-appointed official, Yevhen Balitsky.
• Yevgeniya Yashina, communications director at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, told TASS that there was heavy Ukrainian shelling in the vicinity of the facility, which has been under Russian occupation since 2022.

Politics and diplomacy

• French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will chair a video conference of Ukraine’s “Coalition of the Allies” on February 24, which will mark the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Macron’s office said on Friday.

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters in a WhatsApp group that no positive movement has been made regarding negotiations over the future of Ukrainian land occupied by Russia in peace talks with Moscow mediated by the United States.
• Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that he cannot yet confirm when and where a new round of talks on Ukraine will take place after TASS reported the next talks will take place in Geneva.

Energy

• The European Commission has allowed the German government to take trusteeship of the German assets of US-sanctioned Russian oil group Rosneft, which supplies most of the fuel to Berlin via its PCK Schwedt refinery, when the current arrangement expires on March 10.

• The US Department of the Treasury has extended a sanctions waiver on Serbia’s Russian-owned oil firm NIS until March 20, giving the Balkan country another month to import crude oil supplies, Serbia’s Energy Minister Dubravka Djedovic Handanovic said in a statement.
• Hungary will block a 90 billion euro ($106bn) European Union loan for Ukraine until oil transit to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline resumes, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said.
• “By blocking oil transit to Hungary through the Druzhba pipeline, Ukraine violates the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, breaching its commitments to the European Union. We will not give in to this blackmail,” Szijjarto said on X.

Regional security

• Britain and European allies – including France, Germany, Italy and Poland – will work together to develop new low-cost air defence weapons to protect the continent’s skies, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence said in a statement.

A group of Block 52 F-16CJ Vipers belonging to the South Carolina Air National Guard was recently spotted heading east across the Atlantic as part of a huge build-up of U.S. forces ahead of potential strikes on Iran. Each of the Vipers was notably seen carrying an Angry Kitten pod, a new electronic warfare system that helps defend against anti-air threats, and that may now be headed for its first use in real combat. Angry Kitten also has a very unique genesis, which we will dive into in a moment. These particular F-16s are primarily tasked with the Wild Weasel mission and are optimized for neutralizing enemy air defenses, something that would be crucial in any future operation aimed at the regime in Tehran. They can fulfill many other types of missions, as well.

The 12 F-16CJs arrived at Lajes on the island of Terceira in the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago in the mid-Atlantic, on February 17 and left the next day. The Vipers are readily identifiable as ones assigned to the South Carolina Air National Guard’s 169th Fighter Wing by the “South Carolina” emblazoned on many of their tails, as well as distinctive markings reflecting the wing’s nickname, the “Swamp Foxes.” They were accompanied by at least one KC-46A Pegasus tanker. A substantial U.S. Air Force tanker force is now also forward-deployed in Lajes to support the ongoing build-up.

Roar of the F-16s Over the Atlantic | KC-46A Opens the Afternoon ✈️🇺🇸

Military Stopover in the Azores | F-16 & KC-46A ✈️🇺🇸 at Lajes

The F-16s transiting through Lajes carried inert AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) on their wingtips and drop tanks under each wing, as well as a single baggage pod. Each Viper also had a LITENING targeting pod and an AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System pod. The AN/ASQ-213 is a key feature of Wild Weasel F-16s and is primarily designed to support the employment of members of the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) family. AGM-88-series missiles are chief among the munitions U.S. aircraft typically use during suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions.

However, the most notable stores seen on the jets were the Angry Kitten pods hanging underneath their fuselages. U.S. Air Force F-16s, and especially Wild Weasel CJs, typically carry other types of electronic warfare pods, such as the AN/ALQ-184 and AN/ALQ-131, on that station.

Angry Kitten has a very different story from other electronic warfare pods in U.S. military service. It is a direct outgrowth of the AN/ALQ-167, a series of pods primarily used to mimic hostile electronic warfare threats for training and testing purposes for decades. There are some documented examples of U.S. aircraft carrying AN/ALQ-167s, at least on an ad hoc basis, on real combat missions.

The development of Angry Kitten, which dates back to the early 2010s, was originally focused on providing improved electronic warfare capabilities for testing and training use, especially by aggressors playing the role of ‘red air’ adversaries. However, the potential value of the new pods as operational assets to help protect friendly aircraft quickly became apparent. The ability to rapidly adapt the pods in training to provide different effects simulating enemy systems, in particular, opened the door to a much more agile electronic system for use on real-world missions.

“We had a jammer called ‘Angry Kitten.’ It was built to be an adversary air jamming tool,” now-retired Air Force Gen. Mark Kelly, then commander of Air Combat Command (ACC), told TWZ and other outlets back in 2022. “And all of a sudden, the blue team said, ‘you know, hey, we kind of need that, can we have that for us?’ And so I see this iterating and testing our way into this.”

Angry Kitten has been flying on F-16s since 2017. The pods have also been at least test flown on U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthog ground attack jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft, as well as U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighters. AATC said last year that there were plans to evaluate the pod on KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers.

As TWZ has previously written:

“Unlike the older AN/ALQ-167s, Angry Kitten is designed to be more readily modifiable and updatable to more rapidly adapt in parallel with the threat ecosystem. This is enabled in part by advanced Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, which allows radio frequency (RF) signals to be detected and ‘captured,’ as well as manipulated and retransmitted. Electronic warfare systems that use DRFM can project signals from hostile radars (and radar seekers on missiles) back at them to create false or otherwise confusing tracks. Data collected via DRFM can also be used to help improve and refine the system’s capabilities, as well as for other intelligence exploitation purposes.”

“In general, electronic warfare systems need to be able to accurately detect, categorize, and respond to waveforms based on information contained in their built-in threat libraries to work most effectively. This, in turn, requires specialists to routinely reprogram systems to keep them as up to date as possible. Automating and otherwise shortening that process at every step of the way by developing what are known as cognitive electronic warfare capabilities has become a major area of interest for the entire U.S. military. The absolute ‘holy grail’ of that concept is an electronic warfare system capable of adapting its programming autonomously in real-time, even in the middle of a mission, as you can read more about here.”

Details the Air Force has previously shared about Angry Kitten have highlighted how the system important stepping stone for new cognitive electronic warfare capabilities.

“Unlike the F-16 tests, where pre-programmed mission data files were used, the C-130 testing includes development engineers aboard the aircraft who can modify jamming techniques mid-mission based on feedback from range control,” a release last March from the Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center (AATC), which has been heavily involved in Angry Kitten’s development, explained.

“They are making changes [in] real-time to the techniques and pushing updates to the pod, seeing the change in real-time,” Chris Culver, an electronic warfare engineer involved in the work, said in that same release. “This approach allows for rapid optimization of jamming techniques against various threat systems.”

For F-16s supporting future operations in and around Iran, Angry Kitten would offer a valuable boost in self-defense capability for the fourth-generation jets. Stealthy B-2 Spirit bombers, as well as F-22 and F-35 fighters, spearheaded the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran last year, with non-stealthy platforms providing support on the periphery. A new protracted campaign would involve more substantial effort to break Iran’s air defense overlay, which would likely require heavier use of fourth-generation tactical jets. The SEAD/DEAD missions that the South Carolina Air National Guard jets are optimized for inherently involve added risk since the aircraft are deliberately tasked with finding anti-air threats and engaging them.

Past TWZ analysis of air defense capabilities that Iran has supplied Houthi militants in Yemen offers some sense of the risks involved, even to stealth aircraft. However, Iran’s own capabilities are more advanced. At the same time, Israeli strikes took a significant toll on Iranian air defense systems during last year’s 12 Day War, especially in the western end of the country. It’s unclear to what degree that capacity has been restored in the interim.

Angry Kitten is, of course, just one part of the massive array of electronic warfare and other capabilities that the U.S. military has deployed in and around the Middle East in recent weeks.

It remains to be seen whether President Donald Trump’s administration will launch a new operation, which could last weeks, against Iran. There continues a steady drumbeat of reports pointing to the increasing likelihood of strikes as U.S. military assets continue to flow into the region, but also stressing that no final decision has been made. Trump and other administration officials are at least still publicly pushing for a diplomatic resolution to the current crisis, focused primarily on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“They better negotiate a fair deal,” Trump said today when asked if he had a message for the Iranian people.

Reporter: Do you have any message to the Iranian people?

Trump: The Iranian people in Iran or people here?

Reporter: In Iran

Trump: They better negotiate a fair deal. You know, the people of Iran are a lot different than the leaders of Iran. And it’s very, very very sad… pic.twitter.com/0a7i5LtGf2

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 20, 2026

“The most I can say – I am considering it,” Trump had also said earlier today when asked if he was considering strikes on Iran.

If the Trump administration does decide to move ahead with a new Iran operation, Wild Weasel F-16s from the South Carolina Air National Guard carrying Angry Kitten pods are among the capabilities that could be brought to bear.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, its embarked airwing and elements of its carrier strike group (CSG) are now in the western Mediterranean. The Ford and the USS Mahan, one of its Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer escorts, transited the Strait of Gibraltar around 1 p.m. local time (7 a.m. Eastern), eyewitnesses told The War Zone. The Ford passed through the Strait from the Atlantic after leaving the Caribbean, where it took part in the mission to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

This marks the Ford‘s return to the Mediterranean since leaving its homeport of Norfolk on June 24, 2025. The Ford‘s deployment was extended for a second time to join a growing list of U.S. military assets in the Middle East, including the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, as President Donald Trump considers an attack on Iran. You can read more about how the extension affects the ship and its crew in our story here.

Daniel Ferro, (@Gibdan1 on X), shared photos of the ships with us. 

Another eyewitness, who runs the @maritimegraphy X account, provided to us videos of the ships crossing as well as a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol jet flying overhead. The P-8 is packed with sensors and they often provide overwatch for CSGs to detect potential threats on and under the water’s surface.

Both ship spotters said the U.S. Navy vessels were accompanied by at least one Spanish Navy Santa Maria class frigate. The Pentagon declined comment.

Ford Carrier Strike Groups Enters The Med On Feb. 20th, 2026

As noted earlier, the Ford CSG will eventually be joining the Lincoln CSG, already deployed to the Middle East, as well other Navy ships and scores of tactical jets, surveillance planes, tankers, airborne early warning and control aircraft, as well as additional air defense assets. The Ford‘s current location puts it about 2,500 miles east of the Israeli coast, meaning it could take a few more days to arrive there if that is indeed its intended station, as one report states. While patrolling there would help Israel defend against incoming barrages, the ship’s air wing would have to fly across Israel or Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, and Iraq, to reach Iranian territory.

In addition to the tactical jets already in theater or in bases in Europe preparing to fly there, reports have emerged that the U.S. has pulled F-35 Lighting II stealth fighters and other assets and troops out of NATO’s Cold Response exercise scheduled to take place in Norway next month. This move is another part of the U.S. buildup in the Middle East, according to Norwegian defense officials.

NATO declined comment and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to our query.

The influx of aviation assets has packed U.S. facilities in the Middle East and elsewhere. For instance, satellite images show 18 F-15E Strike Eagles, 18 F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters, 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons, six E/A-18G Growler electronic warfare jets and two MQ-9 Reaper drones visible at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan alone. This does not include all the aircraft that cannot be seen under shelters and sun shades. Every designated spot for a tactical jet that is visible from space is now full at the packed installation.

Lajes Air Field in the Azores has also seen a big uptick of aircraft. There were at least 11 KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tankers, 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons and a C-17 Globemaster II cargo jet there as of yesterday. This includes a KC-46 that had an aborted takeoff last month. The tankers at the island airfield are a critical component of the air bridge between the U.S. and Europe and the Middle East that enables the rapid buildup we have been seeing unfold.

Satellite imagery also shows an increase of refueling tanker activity at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, while a continuous decrease at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East. The closer the base is to Iran, the more vulnerable it is to large scale barrages or ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones. Al Udeid sits right on the Persian Gulf. As we have previously noted, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have both said they would not allow U.S. forces to use their territory or airspace for an attack against Iran. Whether that pledge sticks is doubtful.

Friday morning, Trump was asked if he is considering a “limited strike” against Iran if it does not agree to a deal to curtail its nuclear weapons ambitions. He replied in the affirmative. The president did not provide details of what that could entail or when it might be launched.

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

Millions travel to Kenya and Tanzania each year to witness the Great Migration, but growing tourism infrastructure is raising concerns. Conservationists and community leaders warn that development is disrupting wildlife corridors and impacting Maasai land rights. We explore the science behind migration shifts, the economic role of tourism, and ask whether conservation and community livelihoods can coexist.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Joseph Moses Oleshangay – Lawyer and human rights activist

Chloe Buiting – Veterinarian and wildlife conservationist

Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka – Veterinarian

Grant Hopcraft – Researcher and professor, University of Glasgow