TODAY

Announcing the move, staff at the outlet said ‘authoritarian regimes are already celebrating’ its potential demise.

Radio Free Asia (RFA) will shut down its news operations on Friday, citing the government-funded news outlet’s dire financial situation caused by funding cuts under President Donald Trump’s administration and the ongoing US government shutdown.

Bay Fang, RFA’s president and CEO, said in a statement that “uncertainty about our budgetary future” means that the outlet has been “forced to suspend all remaining news content production”.

“In an effort to conserve limited resources on hand and preserve the possibility of restarting operations should consistent funding become available, RFA is taking further steps to responsibly shrink its already reduced footprint,” she said on Wednesday.

Fang added that RFA would begin closing its overseas bureaus and would formally lay off and pay severance to furloughed staff. She said many staff members have been on unpaid leave since March, “when the US Agency for Global Media [USAGM] unlawfully terminated RFA’s Congressionally appropriated grant”.

On March 14, Trump signed an executive order effectively eliminating USAGM, an independent US government agency created in the mid-1990s to broadcast news and information to regions with poor press freedom records.

Alongside RFA, USAGM also hosts sister publications Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE) and Voice of America (VOA).

Following March’s executive order, RFA was forced to put three-quarters of its US-based employees on unpaid leave and terminate most of its overseas contractors.

Another round of mass layoffs followed in May, along with the termination of several RFA language services, including Tibetan, Burmese and Uighur.

Mass layoffs also took place at VOA in March when Trump signed another executive order placing nearly all 1,400 staff at the outlet – which he described as a “total left-wing disaster” – on paid leave. It has operated on a limited basis since then.

Trump has said operations like RFA, RFE/Radio Liberty and VOA are a waste of government resources and accused them of being biased against his administration.

Since its founding in 1996, RFA has reported on Asia’s most repressive regimes, providing English- and local-language online and broadcast services to citizens of authoritarian governments across the region.

Its flagship projects include its Uighur service – the world’s only independent Uyghur-language outlet, covering the repressed ethnic group in western China – as well as its North Korea service, which reports on events inside the hermit state.

An announcement penned by RFA executive editor Rosa Hwang, published on the outlet’s website on Wednesday, said, “Make no mistake, authoritarian regimes are already celebrating RFA’s potential demise.”

“Independent journalism is at the core of RFA. For the first time since RFA’s inception almost 30 years ago, that voice is at risk,” Hwang said.

“We still believe in the urgency of that mission – and in the resilience of our extraordinary journalists. Once our funding returns, so will we,” she added.

RFE/Radio Liberty, which went through its own round of furloughs earlier this year, said this week that it received its last round of federal funding in September and its news services are continuing for now.

“We plan to continue reaching our audiences for the foreseeable future,” it said.

It’s not immediately clear why RFA and RFE/Radio Liberty – which share the same governing and funding structure, but are based in the US and Europe, respectively – are taking different approaches.

The Trump administration will limit the number of refugees admitted to the US to 7,500 over the next year, and give priority to white South Africans.

The move, announced in a notice published on Thursday, marks a dramatic cut from the previous limit of 125,000 set by former President Joe Biden and will bring the cap to a record low.

No reason was given for the cut, but the notice said it was “justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest”.

In January, Trump signed an executive order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme, or USRAP, which he said would allow US authorities to prioritise national security and public safety.

The previous lowest refugee admissions cap was set by the first Trump administration in 2020, when it allocated 15,000 spots for fiscal year 2021.

The notice posted to the website of the Federal Register said the 7,500 admissions would “primarily” be allocated to Afrikaner South Africans and “other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands”.

In February, the US president announced the suspension of critical aid to South Africa and offered to allow members of the Afrikaner community – who are mostly white descendants of early Dutch and French settlers – to settle in the US as refugees.

South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, Ebrahim Rasool, was later expelled after accusing Trump of “mobilising a supremacism” and trying to “project white victimhood as a dog whistle”.

In the Oval Office in May, Trump confronted South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and claimed white farmers in his nation were being killed and “persecuted”.

The White House also played a video which they said showed burial sites for murdered white farmers. It later emerged that the videos were scenes from a 2020 protest in which the crosses represented farmers killed over multiple years.

The tense meeting came just days after the US granted asylum to 60 Afrikaners.

The South African government has vehemently denied that Afrikaners and other White South Africans are being persecuted.

On his first day in office on 20 January, Trump said the US would suspend USRAP to reflect the US’s lack of “ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans” and “protects their safety and security”.

The US policy of accepting white South Africans has already prompted accusations of unfair treatment from refugee advocacy groups.

Some have argued the US is now effectively shut to other persecuted groups or people facing potential harm in their home country, and even former allies that helped US forces in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

“This decision doesn’t just lower the refugee admissions ceiling,” Global Refuge CEO and president Krish O’Mara Vignarajah said on Thursday. “It lowers our moral standing.”

“At a time of crisis in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Venezuela to Sudan and beyond, concentrating the vast majority of admissions on one group undermines the programme’s purpose as well as its credibility,” she added.

Refugees International also slammed the move, saying it “makes a mockery of refugee protection and of American values”.

“Let us be frank: whatever hardships some Afrikaners may face, this population has no plausible claim on refugee status – they are not fleeing systematic persecution,” Refugees International said in its statement.

The South African government has yet to respond to the latest announcement.

During the Oval Office meeting, President Ramaphosa said only that he hoped that Trump officials would listen to South Africans about the issue, and later said he believed there is “doubt and disbelief about all this in [Trump’s] head”.

Earlier this year, Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately-owned land without compensation in some circumstances.

While the country does not release race-based crime figured, figures published earlier this year showed that 7,000 people were murdered in South African between October and December 2024.

Of these, 12 were killed in farm attacks and only one of the 12 was a farmer. Five others were farm dwellers and four were employees, who are likely to have been black.

President Donald Trump has come out in support of a future fleet of South Korean nuclear-powered submarines. He says he has signed off on the plan and has claimed that at least some of the boats will be built in the United States. Authorities in South Korea have been open about their nuclear-powered submarine ambitions for years, but have faced pushback, including from the United States, particularly over nuclear proliferation concerns.

Trump has made two posts on his Truth Social social media network discussing South Korean nuclear-powered submarine plans in the past day or so. The U.S. President held a summit with his South Korean counterpart, Lee Jae Myung, yesterday, which was centered heavily on trade negotiations. Trump’s visit to South Korea was part of a larger tour of Asia.

“Our Military Alliance is stronger than ever before and, based on that, I have given them approval to build a Nuclear Powered Submarine, rather than the old fashioned, and far less nimble diesel powered submarines that they have now,” Trump wrote in one post on Truth Social.

“South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ U.S.A.,” he wrote in a second post. “Shipbuilding in our Country will soon be making a BIG COMEBACK. Stay tuned!!!”

The South Korean Navy already has a substantial fleet of diesel-electric submarines, which currently consists of 12 Jang Bogo class, nine Sohn Won-yil class, and three Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class types. The Jang Bogo and Sohn Won-yil class submarines are German-designed Type 209s and Type 214s, respectively. The Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class, also known as the KS-III Batch I, is a domestically developed design. Just this month, South Korea launched the first of a planned subclass of three KS-III Batch IIs, the country’s largest and most advanced submarine to date, which you can read more about here.

In general, compared to even advanced diesel-electric types like the KS-III Batch II, the key benefit that nuclear-powered submarines offer is functionally unlimited range.

The Trump administration has yet to elaborate on exactly what the current South Korean nuclear-powered submarine plan might entail and the roles that the United States may play.

The shipyard in Philadelphia that Trump mentioned is most likely the Hanwha Philly Shipyard. That yard had been Philadelphia Shipyard Inc. until elements of the South Korean conglomerate Hanwha acquired it last year. That yard has never produced a submarine of any kind or any type of nuclear-powered vessel.

“Asked about Trump’s submarine announcement, Hanwha Ocean, which owns the shipyard with another Hanwha affiliate, said it was ready to cooperate with both countries and provide support with advanced technology, but did not mention specifics,” according to Reuters.

General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, and Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Newport News, Virginia, are two current producers of nuclear-powered submarines in the United States.

South Korea’s “Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back told lawmakers that plans called for South Korea to build its own submarines and modular reactors, and receive a supply of enriched uranium fuel from the United States,” Reuters also reported. “Seok Jong-gun, the minister for the defense acquisition program administration told the same hearing that South Korea had been developing small nuclear reactors for some time and would be able to build one for a submarine in less than the decade usually needed to develop such nuclear-powered vessels.”

“We believe if we use the technologies we have been preparing for the future…we’ll be able to achieve this within a short period of time,” Seok added, per Reuters‘ story.

The South Korean government is known to have conducted at least one detailed design study relating to a miniature nuclear reactor for use on a future submarine, called the 326 Initiative, in the 2003 timeframe. The country also has an established nuclear power industry that develops reactors for non-military purposes, but which could be leveraged for such work.

A key question, in general, when it comes to nuclear-powered submarine designs, is the level of enrichment of the fuel inside their reactors. U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarines notably have reactors with fuel enriched to the same level as material for nuclear weapons. This is not a requisite, however. The reactors inside current French nuclear-powered submarines use low-enriched uranium. There are reports that Chinese nuclear-powered submarines may also use reactors with LEU fuel.

Still, it is worth noting here that, at least currently, the only countries with operational nuclear-powered submarines are also nuclear weapon states. At the same time, that is already set to change with the Australian Navy’s expected acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement.

Since 2015, South Korea has also faced the unique hurdle of a bilateral agreement that bars it from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel without U.S. government approval. Trump appears to have now given that approval. Defense Minister Ahn’s comments, per Reuters, indicate the hurdle has been further cleared by a plan to source the nuclear material directly from the United States.

A South Korean nuclear submarine program could still create proliferation concerns for the country, which is presently a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As TWZ previously wrote when the possibility of South Korea acquiring nuclear-powered submarines came up in 2018:

The need to build enrichment or other nuclear facilities, or otherwise acquire the highly enriched fissile material, could also draw international criticism that South Korea is abiding by the letter, but not the spirit of the NPT, effectively developing a nuclear weapons program in all but name. These issues are at the core of why South Korea conducted the 326 Initiative in secret and why it abandoned it after it became public, attracting the attention of both the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

South Korean officials have talked in the past about the possibility of changing geopolitical circumstances on the Peninsula, and elsewhere, leading it to start its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea is, of course, a nuclear weapons state, and it may now be pursuing its own nuclear-powered submarines with assistance from Russia.

The South Korean Navy would also have to develop suitable infrastructure to sustain a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, as well as train personnel in the operational and maintenance of naval reactors. There could be cost and related industrial base concerns, especially depending on how deeply involved the United States needs to be in any such plan. Questions have already been raised about whether the U.S. nuclear-powered submarine industry can support Australia’s needs and U.S. Navy requirements. The U.S. naval shipbuilding industry, as a whole, has faced serious challenges in recent years and continues to despite government-backed efforts to bolster its capabilities and capacity.

There are still larger questions about South Korea’s practical need for a nuclear-powered submarine capability. South Korean President Lee has said that his country fielding nuclear-powered submarines could help reduce operational demands for its American allies. Especially combined with conventionally-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), it could also give the South Korean Navy more of a true second-strike capability to help deter North Korea.

However, North Korea has limited anti-submarine warfare capabilities, while South Korean diesel-electric submarine designs are only getting more and more advanced. The range and other benefits that nuclear propulsion offers for naval vessels generally point to broader, blue water ambitions. This is certainly the case for Australia, which is situated far from the areas it expects its future nuclear-powered boats to operate.

As such, South Korea’s work to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, especially if they are capable of carrying out longer-range strikes on targets at sea and/or ashore, could have broader ramifications. The KSS-III Batch I submarines can already fire conventionally-armed SLBMs (SLBM), a capability that is being expanded upon in the Batch II types.

The Chinese government “hopes that South Korea and the United States will earnestly fulfill their nuclear non-proliferation obligations and do things to promote regional peace and stability, and not the other way around,” Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry, said in response to the nuclear-powered submarine news, according to Reuters.

China already has a very large submarine force that includes diesel-electric and nuclear-powered types, and which it continues to expand in both size and capability.

Much still remains to be learned about how, and when, South Korea may expect to finally begin operating nuclear-powered submarines. Regardless, the country’s ambitions in this regard have now gotten a major boost in support from President Trump.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The New Reactor Economy

In the twenty-first century, nuclear energy has re-emerged not only as a source of electricity but also as an instrument of geopolitical endurance. Among all global reactor exporters, Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporationremains exceptionally resilient. Despite sanctions and fractured supply chains, Rosatom today is involved in the construction of thirty to forty reactor units worldwide, including in Egypt’s El-Dabaa, Bangladesh’s Rooppur, and Turkey’s Akkuyu.

Yet beneath the story of uranium and concrete lies a subtler revolution: the rise of digital-twin technology. A digital twin is a virtual, data-driven replica of a reactor that mirrors every process in real time using sensors, analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI). It enables engineers to simulate performance, anticipate faults, and fine-tune safety systems remotely.

In doing so, Rosatom is no longer merely exporting atomic hardware; it is exporting data architectures and predictive-analytics ecosystems that tether partner nations to Russian digital infrastructures for decades. The company has consolidated these capabilities under its Unified Digital Platform, linking design, construction, and operation through cloud-based modelling and AI-driven monitoring (Rosatom Newsletter, 2025).

This digitalization marks a turning point in nuclear diplomacy: power now flows through algorithms and data, not only through megawatts and materials.

From Hardware Exports to Data Dependencies

Since 2020, Rosatom’s subsidiaries, notably Atomenergomash and Rusatom Service, have begun integrating digital lifecycle systems across their international reactor portfolio. The company’s engineering arm, ASE, has developed what it calls Multi-D IMS, a digital configuration-management platform that creates detailed virtual models of nuclear facilities during design and construction. These models enable real-time collaboration, fault prediction, and workflow optimization across sites, forming the foundation of Rosatom’s emerging digital-twin ecosystem.

Rosatom’s own communications describe these tools as part of a broader Unified Digital Platform, which connects design, manufacturing, and operation through cloud-based modelling and AI-driven analytics. While official statements do not identify specific plants using these systems, Rosatom notes that its “digital infrastructure and twin technologies” are being offered to international partners within its reactor export programs.

This architecture creates a durable maintenance corridor between Moscow and client operators.  Even after physical construction ends, the flow of digital data and software updates ensures that Russian engineers remain integral to plant performance.  In practice, the information layer itself becomes a channel of long-term engagement and influence.

Comparable Western vendors, EDF, Westinghouse, and GE Hitachi, are also pursuing digital-twin technologies. Yet Rosatom’s approach is uniquely state-integrated, aligning with Russia’s national strategy of digital sovereignty and self-sufficient AI infrastructure. The result is a hybrid of engineering innovation and strategic design: a system that embeds Russian digital standards within the nuclear industries of its partners.

For many developing economies, the offer is pragmatic: a single vendor providing financing, turnkey construction, and continuous digital assistance.  But this convenience introduces a subtler dependence, one not of uranium supply or credit, but of algorithmic reliance and data governance.

Kudankulam: India’s Quiet Test Bed

Nowhere is this shift more visible than in southern India. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP), jointly operated by India’s Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Rosatom, is the first operational complex of VVER-1000 reactors in the Global South.

Originally a hardware partnership signed in 1988, Kudankulam is evolving into a digital interface. In 2020, Rosatom’s fuel subsidiary TVEL supplied India with next-generation TVS-2M fuel assemblies, extending reactor cycles from twelve to eighteen months, a shift managed through digital modelling and predictive maintenance.

Rosatom’s 2024 annual report outlines plans to connect Kudankulam’s operational analytics to its Unified Digital Nuclear Industry Platform, integrating India into the same digital ecosystem that supports Turkey’s and Egypt’s projects.

For India, this offers substantial advantages, higher capacity factors, enhanced safety diagnostics, and exposure to emerging global standards in nuclear AI. Yet it also entwines India’s civilian nuclear operations with Russian data protocols and remote diagnostic tools. Kudankulam thus becomes not only a reactor but also a node in Rosatom’s global digital web, where megawatts are managed by code as much as by turbines.

This duality defines the future of strategic cooperation: efficiency through integration, balanced against data-driven interdependence.

Algorithmic Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy

Digital integration introduces a new vocabulary of power. Terms once reserved for information technology, data sovereignty, algorithmic control, and cybersecurity now shape energy diplomacy. For countries like India, which prize autonomy, these are practical concerns.

In 2019, a cyber incident at Kudankulam briefly demonstrated how vulnerable nuclear infrastructure can be when administrative networks intersect with global data flows. Although operational systems were unaffected, the episode exposed the need for stronger digital-governance frameworks in critical energy sectors.

Another question concerns ownership of reactor data. Predictive-maintenance algorithms rely on vast datasets, coolant temperatures, pressure levels, and sensor diagnostics gathered continuously during operation. If these datasets are processed on Rosatom’s proprietary cloud, who controls their reuse or replication? India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) mandates localization for sensitive data, yet nuclear information exists in a legal grey zone, governed more by bilateral contracts than explicit national legislation.

For Russia, digitalization ensures resilience under sanctions. Cloud-based engineering assistance allows specialists in Moscow to monitor reactors abroad even when travel or logistics are constrained. For partners, it delivers cost-efficient expertise, yet it also embeds an asymmetry; operational sovereignty becomes mediated by foreign algorithms.

Rosatom’s approach reflects Moscow’s broader strategy of technological statecraft, using digital ecosystems to sustain global reach despite economic isolation. The outcome is a new form of dependence: not energy insecurity but informational dependency.

Atoms → Algorithms: The Next Frontier of Energy Diplomacy

Rosatom’s digital transformation parallels wider trends in global technology politics. China’s Digital Silk Road, the U.S.-EU “trusted-tech” frameworks, and Russia’s own push for a “Digital Atom Belt” all reveal how infrastructure and information are converging.

India occupies a delicate middle ground. Collaboration with Rosatom at Kudankulam grants access to advanced analytics, but New Delhi also explores partnerships with Western firms on small modular reactors and new fuel cycles. Balancing these engagements will require clear rules on digital interoperability, data governance, and cyber assurance.

India already has the institutions to do so. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) verifies reactor-control software domestically, while CERT-IN supervises cyber-critical infrastructure. Extending such oversight to digital-twin and predictive-maintenance platforms can preserve sovereignty while encouraging innovation.

For Russia, meanwhile, digital twins are both export products and diplomatic instruments. By embedding AI-based support systems in every reactor project, Rosatom ensures long-term relevance. Even if hardware exports slow, its role as a digital-lifecycle provider guarantees enduring engagement. In that sense, Rosatom’s most influential reactor export may no longer be physical; it is virtual.

Conclusion: The Politics of Invisible Power

The shift from atoms to algorithms defines the next frontier of nuclear diplomacy. During the Cold War, power was measured in reactors built or megawatts produced. Today, it is determined by who controls the data that sustains those reactors.

For partner nations, digital twins promise transparency, efficiency, and safety. For exporting powers, they offer a quiet form of leverage that persists beyond physical construction. As India pursues self-reliance through Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat, it must treat data infrastructure with the same strategic weight as fuel supply chains.

The aim should not be isolation from partners like Russia but reciprocal digital governance, shared access protocols, transparent algorithmic audits, and domestic data custody. Rosatom’s digital twin diplomacy exemplifies a future where technological cooperation and strategic caution must coexist.

The next great non-proliferation challenge may not concern uranium enrichment but data enrichment: who holds it, who protects it, and who decides how it is used?

Advocates say new rules let Education Department to politically punish groups working on immigration, transgender care.

The United States Department of Education has finalised new rules that could bar nonprofits deemed to have undertaken work with a “substantial illegal purpose” from a special student loan forgiveness programme.

Those rules, finalised on Thursday, appear to single out certain organisations that do work in areas that President Donald Trump politically opposes, including immigration advocacy and transgender rights.

Under the new rules, set to take effect in July 2026, the education secretary has the power to exclude groups if they engage in activities like the “chemical castration” of children, using a politically charged term for gender-affirming healthcare, including puberty-delaying medication.

It also allows the education secretary to bar groups accused of supporting undocumented immigration or “terrorist” organisations.

The Trump administration has said its decisions “will not be made based on the political views or policy preferences of the organization”.

But advocates fear the move is the administration’s latest effort to target left-leaning and liberal organisations.

Trump has already threatened to crack down on several liberal nonprofits, which the White House has broadly accused of being part of “domestic terror networks”.

Thursday’s rules concern the Public Service Loan Forgiveness programme, created by an act of Congress in 2007.

In an effort to direct more graduates into public service jobs, the programme promises to cancel federal student loans for government employees and many nonprofit workers after they have made 10 years of payments.

Workers in the public sector, including teachers, medical professionals, firefighters, social service professionals and lawyers, are among those who can benefit.

In a statement, the Trump administration defended the updated rules, calling them a necessary bulwark to protect taxpayer funds.

The programme “was meant to support Americans who dedicate their careers to public service – not to subsidize organizations that violate the law, whether by harboring illegal immigrants or performing prohibited medical procedures that attempt to transition children away from their biological sex”, said Education Undersecretary Nicholas Kent.

Critics, however, have denounced the administration for using false claims of “terrorism” or criminal behaviour to silence opposing views and restrict civil liberties.

Michael Lukens, executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said the new rules weaponised loan forgiveness.

Lukens explained that many of the lawyers, social workers and paralegals who work at his organisation handle cases to stop deportations and other immigration litigation.

They count on public service loan forgiveness to take jobs that pay significantly less than the private sector, he said.

“All of a sudden, that’s going away,” Lukens told The Associated Press news agency. “The younger generation, I hope, will be able to wait this out for the next couple of years to see if it gets better, but if it doesn’t, we’re going to see a lot of people leave the field to go and work in a for-profit space.”

Organisations have raised concerns over the education secretary’s broad power to determine if a group should be barred. Short of a legal finding, the secretary can decide based on a “preponderance of the evidence” whether an employer is in violation.

The National Council of Nonprofits was among the associations criticising the change.

It said the rules would allow future administrations from any political party to change eligibility rules “based on their own priorities or ideology”.

After more than 20 years under construction, the Grand Egyptian Museum will finally open this weekend, promising more than 50,000 artifacts showing what life was like in ancient Egypt.

The rare move comes after mounting pressure to act over Andrew’s relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

King Charles III has stripped his brother Prince Andrew of his remaining titles and evicted him from his royal residence after weeks of pressure to act over his relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace said on Thursday the king “initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew”.

After the king’s rare move, Andrew will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and not as a prince, and he will move from his Royal Lodge residence into “private accommodation”.

It is almost unprecedented for a British prince or princess to be stripped of that title. It last happened in 1919, when Prince Ernest Augustus, who was a UK royal and also a prince of Hanover, had his British title removed for siding with Germany during World War I.

Demand had been growing on the palace to remove the prince from Royal Lodge after he surrendered his use of the title duke of York earlier this month over new revelations about his friendship with Epstein and renewed sexual abuse allegations by one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, whose posthumous memoir hit bookstores last week.

But the king went even further to punish him for serious lapses of judgement by removing the title of prince that he had held since birth as a child of a monarch, the late Queen Elizabeth II.

“These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him,” the palace said. “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

Giuffre’s brother declared victory for his sister, who died in April at the age of 41.

“Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage,” her brother Skye Roberts said in a statement.

Andrew faced a new round of public opprobrium after emails emerged earlier this month showing he had remained in contact with Epstein longer than he previously admitted.

That news was followed by the publication of, Nobody’s Girl, by Giuffre, who alleged she had sex with Andrew when she was 17. The book detailed three alleged sexual encounters with Andrew, who she said acted as if he believed “having sex with me was his birthright”.

Andrew, 65, has long denied Giuffre’s claims, but stepped down from royal duties after a disastrous November 2019 BBC interview in which he attempted to rebut her allegations.

Andrew paid millions in an out-of-court settlement in 2022 after Giuffre filed a civil suit against him in New York. While he did not admit wrongdoing, he acknowledged Giuffre’s suffering as a victim of sex trafficking.

The move by the king means Andrew will no longer be a prince or be known as “his royal highness”, “duke of York”, “earl of Inverness” or “baron Killyleagh” – all titles he held until now. Also gone are honours that include Order of the Garter and status as knight grand cross of the Royal Victorian Order.

Andrew is expected to move to a property on the king’s Sandringham estate near the northeast coast and receive private financial support from his brother.

The streets have grown restless since Cameroon announced the results of its Oct. 12 presidential election, which returned 92-year-old Paul Biya as the country’s leader for an eighth consecutive term since 1982.

From Douala to Garoua and the capital, Yaounde, protesters have clashed with police, denouncing what they call a “stolen” and “manipulated” election, revealing the deep anger and mistrust that have defined the country’s politics for decades. 

Biya, who won the election with 53.66 per cent of the vote as declared by the Constitutional Council, is Africa’s oldest and one of the world’s longest-serving leaders. This latest election extends his 43-year rule for another seven years. 

Biya’s main challenger, Issa Tchiroma Bakary, a former ally turned critic, rejected the results, claiming victory based on his campaign’s own tallies. He accused the government of “manipulating the will of the people” and called for nationwide demonstrations. His appeal quickly spread through social media and opposition networks, sparking street protests that soon turned violent.

Other opposition parties and civil society groups have also raised concerns about the credibility of the election. They point to unusually high voter turnouts in some districts, inconsistencies in vote tabulation, and the speed at which results were certified. 

But the anger on the streets is about more than the election. For many, the problem is about a system they say is built to protect incumbency and silence opposition.

Cameroon has been grappling with multiple crises that have weakened its social and political fabric. For nearly a decade, the country has battled separatist insurgencies in the English-speaking North West and South West regions, jihadist attacks in the Far North and the border with Nigeria, and worsening economic hardship in its cities. The election, analysts warned before the vote, could act as a trigger to more instability in the country. Those fears have now materialised. 

The violent ongoing protests have claimed the lives of at least four people, and hundreds have been arrested. Observers suggest the figure may be higher. 

The UN Human Rights Office has since called on security forces to “refrain from the use of lethal force” and urged protesters to demonstrate peacefully. It also reminded authorities of their obligation to respect international human rights law and called for restraint from all political actors.

“We urge the authorities to ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all cases of election-related violence, including the use of unnecessary or disproportionate force, and to bring those responsible to justice,” the UN statement read. 

Douala, the country’s economic capital and largest city, has been the epicentre of the post-election unrest. Eyewitnesses report scenes of gunfire, barricades, and hurried funerals in the city.

In the north, Garoua has also seen violence after reported attacks near Tchiroma’s residence. Smaller towns have joined in, with reports of arrests and clashes spreading across the country. Observers warn that the tension risks taking on ethnic and regional dimensions — a dangerous trend in an already divided nation.

Ethnic divisions have long shaped Cameroon’s politics, and the 2025 election has further exposed these fractures. President Biya’s support remains anchored in his Beti/Bulu base from the Centre and South, while many Bamiléké and Anglophone communities continue to feel excluded from power. The candidacy of Issa Tchiroma, a northern Fulani politician, introduced another layer to the political landscape but did little to ease existing mistrust. Although some of his support came from northern and western groups united mainly by opposition to Biya, the campaign and its aftermath remained charged with ethnic undertones.

As these divisions deepened, tensions between the authorities and the opposition escalated sharply. The government has accused Tchiroma and his supporters of inciting violence and promised to hold them accountable through legal action. Officials say the state is acting to preserve order, but critics argue that the heavy-handed response risks deepening public resentment. Security operations, arrests, and reported internet restrictions have further strained the situation. Access to several areas has been cut off, making it difficult for journalists and humanitarian workers to verify reports of casualties or destruction. However, Tchiroma promised to continue his push until “final victory”. 

As the unrest spreads, attention has also turned to the country’s conflict-prone Anglophone regions. Separatist movements are watching closely, with many viewing the chaos as proof of the central government’s weakness and are using the moment to push their demands for independence. Local leaders warn that any harsh crackdown by the state could inflame tensions in areas where peace is already fragile. 

“Had Biya and his entourage exercised more care in the months before the vote and understood the depth of the government’s unpopularity, this standoff might have been averted,” wrote the International Crisis Group.

Beyond the immediate crisis, the unrest underscores a deeper issue — the fragility of Cameroon’s democratic institutions. Elections are meant to provide legitimacy and a peaceful means of political competition. Instead, they have become flashpoints for unrest. For many young people who have grown up knowing only one president, the sense of disillusionment runs deep. Unemployment remains high, corruption is endemic, and the promise of reform feels distant.

International reactions have been predictable but cautious. Western governments and regional bodies have called for dialogue and restraint. While congratulating Biya on his re-election, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, stated that he “is gravely concerned about the reported violence, repression and arrests of protesters and political actors in connection with the election results.”

Youssouf urged “the Cameroonian authorities to accord topmost priority to inclusive national dialogue and consultation with all political stakeholders in order to reach consensus in the spirit of national unity, peace and collective security.”

Whether those appeals will be heeded remains uncertain. What happens next depends on how the government and opposition respond in the coming weeks. Analysts warn that Cameroon stands at a crossroads. A violent crackdown could trigger a wider crisis, while genuine dialogue might begin to ease the tension. 

The first step, according to the International Crisis Group, should be an independent review of the election results and the violence that followed — a process that includes civil society, opposition representatives, and credible international observers.

Equally critical is the release of protesters detained for exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Restoring communication channels, lifting internet restrictions, and creating safe conditions for independent reporting would also help reduce misinformation and rebuild trust.

But the challenges go far beyond the current unrest. Cameroon’s long-term stability depends on addressing structural grievances, from political exclusion and corruption to the Anglophone crisis that has displaced hundreds of thousands. The government’s reliance on military solutions in the separatist regions has failed to end the conflict, while economic inequality and youth unemployment continue to feed discontent nationwide.

Without deep reform, each election risks becoming another trigger for instability. Political analysts argue that the ruling party must open the political space, allow real competition, and engage communities long excluded from decision-making. “Cameroon’s democracy has been reduced to a ritual,” one Cameroonian journalist told HumAngle. “People vote, results are announced, and nothing changes.”

For now, calm remains fragile. Markets have slowed, schools have closed in some regions, and the streets are lined with soldiers. In several cities, families are mourning relatives caught in the violence. Others fear more crackdowns as protests continue.

The coming days will test whether President Biya’s government can navigate the crisis without pushing the country into deeper turmoil — or whether the unrest will harden into yet another chapter of Cameroon’s long struggle between power and the people.

If the country fails to learn from this moment, the cycle of repression and resistance will only deepen. And for millions of Cameroonians weary of conflict, the dream of a peaceful transition of power will remain just an illusion. 

Minutes before he met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a statement on social media saying he “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” The reason, Trump explained, was because of “other countries [SIC] testing programs.”

Other countries, he said, “seem to all be nuclear testing” but when it comes to the U.S., “We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. We don’t do testing. I see them testing and I say, well, if they’re going to test, I guess we have to test.”

Asked where the tests would occur, the president said, “It’ll be announced. We have test sites.”

At this point, it’s unclear if the president is talking about testing out nuclear weapons delivery systems, something that happens on a regular basis, or actual warheads via a detonation, which the U.S. hasn’t done in more than three decades. The fact that this has not been officially clarified is highly problematic. We reached out to the White House for more details, and they referred us back to Trump’s social media post. We also reached out to several experts for their insights, which you can read more about later in this story.

Testing that results in setting off a chain reaction, known as “critical testing,” last took place nearly a decade ago by North Korea on Sept. 3, 2017. The last U.S. critical nuclear weapons test took place on Sept. 23, 1992, according to the Arms Control Association (ACA). While Russian President Vladimir Putin recently announced the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-tipped torpedo, which could have spurred Trump’s tweet if he really meant testing delivery systems, Moscow last conducted a critical nuclear device test on Oct. 24, 1990, according to the ACA. Meanwhile, China’s last test was on July 29, 1996.

In the interim, however, several nations, including the U.S., have conducted what is known as sub-critical testing, which does not result in setting off a chain reaction. It’s possible that expanding those efforts could be at least part of what Trump is referring to, as well. 

Clearly, restarting live nuclear weapons testing would be a massive departure for the U.S. and a very costly one at that. It would likely prompt other nuclear powers to return to live testing, as well. That is if this is what Trump was truly referring to. Assuming that’s the case, we contacted some of the smartest people we know who work on these issues for a living to give us an understanding of what such a revival would actually entail and how long it would take. Their answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Our participating experts are:

Hans
Kristensen — Director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists. Writes the bi-monthly Nuclear Notebook and the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, Director of Global Risk, American Federation of Scientists.

Daryl G. Kimball has been Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and publisher and contributor for the organization’s monthly journal, Arms Control Today, since September 2001.

Q: Can you tell me the process by which this could happen? What is the chain of command, and who has to be involved?

Hans Kristensen

A: The process for this would require the White House to direct the Department of Energy (DOE) to order the nuclear laboratories to start preparing for a nuclear test. And since the United States doesn’t currently have a nuclear weapons test explosion program, Congress would have to appropriate the money first. 

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: Not sure what “this” is at this point. To conduct operational flight tests of US delivery systems, those are already underway for existing systems and systems in development. For nuclear testing, the US would need to fund the conduct of a nuclear explosive test. It would be conducted by the US Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: The President has the legal authority to do this, but he needs authorization and appropriations for this purpose by Congress, and Congress can block or modify what he can do or under what conditions, etc. It’s the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is responsible for maintaining the existing warheads in the U.S. arsenal. They’ve been doing this since the mid-90s, since the U.S. halted nuclear testing in September 1992 through a very well-funded, sophisticated stockpile stewardship program, which uses non-nuclear, or I should say, non-testing methods, to maintain the seven warhead types in US arsenal.

Q: What specifically would be tested?

Hans Kristensen

A: It is hard to understand what Trump is referring to. It might have been triggered by Russia’s two new missile tests over the last week. But the United States already tests its nuclear weapons in similar ways by conducting test launches and laboratory experiments. If by testing he means nuclear explosive testing, that would be reckless, probably not possible for 18 months, would cost money that Congress would have to approve, and it would most certainly [result in] Russian and Chinese, and likely also India and Pakistan nuclear tests. Unlike the United States, all these countries would have much to gain by restarting nuclear testing. Besides, although there have been occasional rumors that Russia and China may have conducted very small-yield tests, I’m not aware of any reports that they have conducted significant nuclear test explosions.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: Again, it depends. This is not well explained by the President at this point.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: Well, this is a great question that the president’s people need to answer. Nuclear testing has historically been used to proof-test new warhead designs. Does the device explode? Does it detonate to the desired explosive yield? Does it have the characteristics that you want? That is the main reason why the United States conducted most of its 1,030 nuclear tests. What exactly they will be trying to figure out from a technical standpoint, I do not know, and frankly, there is no reason why the United States needs nuclear test explosions to maintain existing warheads in our arsenal.

So, looking at Trump’s statements, it’s pretty clear that whatever kind of nuclear testing he’s thinking about, it’s for political purposes. It is a juvenile kind of tit-for-tat reaction to what he perceives other countries are doing. And I would note that he claims that this is from an overnight quote on Air Force One, one you know, all other countries seem to be doing this. Well, those of us who follow these issues extremely carefully do not see any other country conducting nuclear explosive tests. So the president and his scientific advisors need to explain what he’s talking about. I would say that he appears to be confused and misinformed about this issue.

Q: How long would it take from the time of this social media posting until the tests take place?

Hans Kristensen

A: It would be expensive because the timeline for doing a simple explosion is six to 10 months, a fully instrumented test in 24 to 36 months, and a test to develop a new nuclear warhead is about 60 months.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: It would require anywhere from a few months to conduct a rapid explosive test and 18 months to conduct a fully instrumented test that would yield scientific results.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: I think it would take many months. I would put it at around 36 months to be able to conduct a nuclear explosive test underground that is contained. There are generally two kinds of tests. One is a demonstration test that simply says, ‘We have nuclear weapons and they explode.’ Then there is a test that is designed to derive some data about the weapon’s design to help understand how it’s working. A scientific test requires much more preparation and time than a simple demonstration test. In theory, the United States could fire a Minuteman III missile from the ground. Within an hour, it could detonate a nuclear device high in the atmosphere, and we would see that one of our nuclear warheads works. But that’s not what I think Donald Trump was talking about.

Q: Where could these tests take place?

Hans Kristensen

A: It can practically only be done in Nevada.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: The most likely spot is the Nevada National Security Site, which is the former US nuclear weapons test site about 45 minutes north of Las Vegas. No other location is currently capable or legally structured for the conduct of nuclear explosive tests.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: The Nevada National Security Site, which is nearly the size of Rhode Island, is where the United States conducted the majority of its nuclear test explosions, including 100 in the atmosphere, beginning in 1951. That is the site where, if there’s a military scientific need to resume testing, that’s where the United States has been planning for.

With so many questions about Trump’s nuclear testing statements still outstanding, we are waiting for further clarification from the White House. We will update this story with any pertinent details provided.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Support for Geert Wilders’ far-right, anti-Islam Freedom Party has declined as the centrist D66 party made major gains in the Dutch elections. The two parties are now neck-and-neck in the race to become the largest in parliament.

US states have relied on vaccine mandates since the 1800s, when a smallpox vaccine offered the first successful protection against a disease that had killed millions.

More than a century later, Florida’s top public health official said vaccine requirements are unethical and unnecessary for high vaccination rates.

“You can still have high vaccination numbers, just like the other countries who don’t do any mandates like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the [United Kingdom], most of Canada,” Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo said on October 16. “No mandates, really comparable vaccine uptake.”

It’s true that some countries without vaccine requirements have high vaccination rates, on a par with the United States. But experts say that fact alone does not make it a given that the US would follow the same pattern if it eliminates school vaccination requirements.

Florida state law currently requires students in public and private schools from daycare through 12th grade to have specific immunisations. Families can opt out for religious or medical reasons. About 11 percent of Florida kindergarteners are not immunised, recent data shows. With Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s backing, Ladapo is pushing to end the state’s school vaccine requirements.

The countries Ladapo cited – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the UK and parts of Canada – don’t have broad vaccine requirements, research shows. Their governments recommend such protections, though, and their healthcare systems offer conveniently accessible vaccines, for example.

UNICEF, a United Nations agency which calls itself the “global go-to for data on children”, measures how well countries provide routine childhood immunisations by looking at infant access to the third dose in a DTaP vaccine series that protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough).

In 2024, UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 94 percent of one-year-olds in the United States had received three doses of the DTaP vaccine. That’s compared with Canada at 92 percent, Denmark at 96 percent, Norway at 97 percent, Sweden at 96 percent and the UK at 92 percent.

Universal, government-provided healthcare and high trust in government likely influence those countries’ vaccine uptake, experts have said. In the US, many people can’t afford time off work or the cost of a doctor’s visit. There’s also less trust in the government. These factors could prevent the US from having similar participation rates should the government eliminate school vaccine mandates.

Universal healthcare, stronger government trust increase vaccination

Multiple studies have linked vaccine mandates and increased vaccination rates. Although these studies found associations between the two, the research does not prove that mandates alone cause increased vaccination rates. Association is not the same as causation.

Other factors that can affect vaccination rates often accompany mandates, including local efforts to improve vaccination access, increase documentation and combat vaccine hesitancy and refusal.

The countries Ladapo highlighted are high-income countries with policies that encourage vaccination and make vaccines accessible.

In Sweden, for example, where all vaccinations are voluntary, the vaccines included in national programmes are offered for free, according to the Public Health Agency of Sweden.

Preventive care is more accessible and routine for everyone in countries such as Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK with universal healthcare systems, said Dr Megan Berman of the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences.

“In the US, our healthcare system is more fragmented, and access to care can depend on insurance or cost,” she said.

More limited healthcare access, decreased institutional trust and anti-vaccine activists’ influence set the US apart from those other countries, experts said.

Some of these other countries’ cultural norms favour the collective welfare of others, which means people are more likely to get vaccinated to support the community, Berman said.

Anders Hviid, an epidemiologist at Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, told The Atlantic that it’s misguided to compare Denmark’s health situation with the US – in part because Danish citizens strongly trust the government to enact policies in the public interest.

By contrast, as of 2024, fewer than one in three people in the US over age 15 reported having confidence in the national government, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of advanced, industrialised nations. That’s the lowest percentage of any of the countries Ladapo mentioned.

“The effectiveness of recommendations depends on faith in the government and scientific body that is making the recommendations,” said Dr Richard Rupp, of the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences.

Without mandates, vaccine education would be even more important, experts say

Experts said they believe US vaccination rates would fall if states ended school vaccine mandates.

Maintaining high vaccination rates without mandates would require health officials to focus on other policies, interventions and messaging, said Samantha Vanderslott, the leader of the Oxford Vaccine Group’s Vaccines and Society Unit, which researches attitudes and behaviour towards vaccines.

That could be especially difficult given that the United States’s top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, has a long history of anti-vaccine activism and scepticism about vaccines.

That makes the US an outlier, Vanderslott said.

“Governments tend to promote/support vaccination as a public health good,” she said. It is unusual for someone with Kennedy’s background to hold a position where he has the power to spread misinformation, encourage vaccine hesitancy and reduce mainstream vaccine research funding and access, Vanderslott said.

Most people decide to follow recommendations based on their beliefs about a vaccine’s benefits and their child’s vulnerability to disease, Rupp said. That means countries that educate the public about vaccines and illnesses will have better success with recommendations, he said.

Ultimately, experts said that just because something worked elsewhere doesn’t mean it will work in the United States.

Matt Hitchings, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida’s College of Public Health and Health Professions, said a vaccine policy’s viability could differ from country to country. Vaccination rates are influenced by a host of factors.

“If I said that people in the UK drink more tea than in the US and have lower rates of certain cancers, would that be convincing evidence that drinking tea reduces cancer risk?” Hitchings said.

Google Translate was used throughout the research of this story to translate websites and statements into English.

Russian and Ukrainian forces are interlocked in desperate battles for control of Ukraine’s eastern towns of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, which Moscow considers a gateway to the remaining unoccupied areas of the Donetsk region.

On Sunday, Valery Gerasimov, Russian chief of staff,  told President Vladimir Putin his 2nd and 51st Combined Arms Armies were “advancing along converging axes” and “have completed the encirclement of the enemy” in Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad.

He claimed some 5,500 Ukrainian troops were surrounded, including elite airborne and marine units.

Russian military reporters contradicted these claims, with one named “Military Informant” telling 621,000 Telegram subscribers, “There is simply no encirclement” as the two claws of Gerasimov’s attempted pincer movement were still “several kilometres” apart.

On Thursday, Oleksandr Syrskii, the Ukrainian commander-in-chief, also denied Gerasimov’s claim.

“The statements of Russian propaganda about the alleged ‘blocking’ of the defence forces of Ukraine in Pokrovsk, as well as in Kupiansk, do not correspond to reality,” Syrskii said.

The Russian reporter also thought it “extremely unlikely” that thousands of Ukrainian troops were trapped.

“If earlier urban battles were a classic meat grinder ‘head-to-head’ with battles for each house,” he said, now they are “conducted by small groups of infantry with the support of many drones”.

Geolocated footage showed that isolated Russian groups had entered western and central Pokrovsk on October 23, but they did not appear to control areas within the city, rather to stake out positions and await reinforcements.

Ukraine’s General Staff said the situation around Pokrovsk “remains difficult”, and estimated that some 200 Russian troops had infiltrated the town, but said defending units were conducting sabotage operations that prevented Russian units from gaining a permanent foothold.

The front around Pokrovsk also remained dynamic.

Ukrainian military observer Konstantyn Mashovets reported that Kyiv’s troops were able to ambush Russian rear positions in the village of Sukhetsky, northeast of Pokrovsk, demonstrating the porousness of the front line.

“[Russian] small infantry groups in some places began to collide with Ukrainian corresponding groups quite often and suddenly, even before their deployment or when moving to strengthen and replenish their assault groups directly,” said Mashovets.

“Due to the abundance of drones in the air, which make the movement of any large concentrations of infantry extremely dangerous, the positions of both sides remain mixed,” said Kremlin-aligned Russian military news outlet Rybar. “This leads to the absence of a single front line and prevents the determination of the exact boundaries of the control zones.”

Mashovets estimated that the Russian 2nd Combined Arms Army, which he described as the “main impact force”, had received reinforcements of between 6,000 and 10,500 troops from other areas of the front ahead of the latest assault, which began in mid-October.

“Special attention is focused on Pokrovsk and the neighbouring areas. That is where the occupier has concentrated its largest assault forces,” said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a Monday evening address. “It is Pokrovsk that is their main objective.”

Ukraine strikes Russian energy hubs

Zelenskyy has often said his objective is to return the war to Russian soil. Ukraine’s long-range drones and cruise missiles were performing that task during the past week.

Ukraine struck the Ryazan oil refinery for the fifth time this year on October 23, setting ablaze a crude oil distillation unit. Russia’s Defence Ministry said 139 Ukrainian drones had been shot down overnight.

Leningrad’s regional governor said “several” Ukrainian drones had been shot down without causing damage or casualties on Saturday.

Ukraine struck a fuel and lubricants container in Simferopol on Wednesday, Crimean occupation Governor Sergey Aksyonov said.

Putin boasts of weapons ‘nobody else in the world has’

Russian officials who have been supportive of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to negotiate a peace directly with Putin changed their tone after Trump cancelled a summit with Putin and imposed sanctions on Russian oil majors Lukoil and Rosneft last week.

“The US is our adversary, and its verbose ‘peacemaker’ is now firmly on the warpath against Russia,” said Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia’s National Security Council, saying Trump was now “completely aligned with mad Europe”.

Over cakes and tea with Russian war veterans on Monday, Putin announced the successful test launch of a new nuclear-powered torpedo with the ability to create radioactive tidal waves targeting coastal regions.

The Poseidon reportedly has a range of 10,000km (6,200 miles) and travels at 185km/h (115mph). As with previous unveilings of Russian weapons, Putin said, “There’s nothing like it in the world, its rivals are unlikely to appear anytime soon, and there are no existing interception methods”.

Duma Defence Committee Chairman Andrey Kartapolov said the Poseidon was“capable of disabling entire states”.

Three days earlier, Putin had announced the successful test of a new nuclear-capable cruise missile, the Burevestnik, which is also nuclear-powered.

“It is a unique ware which nobody else in the world has,” Putin said.

Russia followed a similar political intimidation tactic in November 2024, when it launched the Oreshnik, a hypersonic, intermediate-range ballistic, nuclear-capable missile, to hit a Ukrainian factory in Dnipro. On Tuesday, Putin said he would deploy the Oreshnik in Belarus by December.

Russia also tested the Sarmat, a new intercontinental ballistic missile that Putin said is not yet operational, in the Sea of Japan. None of the tests were independently verified, and it was unclear whether any of the new weapons were battle-ready or whether they could be produced at scale.

On October 22, Moscow conducted a routine strategic forces exercise, sending Tupolev-22M3 long-range bombers over the Baltic Sea, framing it as a reaction to Western aggression.

Trump said on Monday that Putin should instead focus on ending the war.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate thing for Putin to be saying,” said the US president. “You ought to get the war ended; the war that should have taken one week is now in … its fourth year, that’s what you ought to do instead of testing missiles.”

After more than a year of bloody assaults at great cost in troops and equipment, Russian forces are now fighting inside the key Ukrainian logistical hub of Pokrovsk, Ukrainian and Russian officials say. The extent of that advance, however, is in dispute. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday claimed the city is now encircled, something Ukrainian military officials deny.

As we have previously noted, Pokrovsk has been the major focus of fighting in the east because of its importance to both sides. Not only does it straddle a major rail line and several highways, it is part of a string of fortified cities in Ukraine’s Donetsk region that have so far prevented Russia from taking over all of that area and pushing deeper into Ukraine.

“The enemy has managed to drag…several hundred infantrymen into the city and continues to infiltrate deeper into the populated area, expanding their sabotage and reconnaissance activities,” the Ukrainian DeepState open-source tracking group claimed on Wednesday. That assessment lines up with statements Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made on Tuesday that about 200 Russian troops have entered Pokrovsk. The Ukrainian leader acknowledged that he was providing a conservative estimate of Russia’s presence in Pokrovsk.

At one point, Russian forces managed to raise their tri-color flag in Pokrovsk, but that was reportedly quickly destroyed by a drone.

Compounding Ukraine’s problems, Russian forces have broken a major logistics route towards the town of Myrnohrad, about two miles to the east along the TO504 highway, added DeepState, which has close ties to the Ukrainian military. In addition, Russian forces have also entered the southeastern outskirts of Myrnohrad, putting additional pressure on Pokrovsk, according to the Institute for the Study of War’s latest assessment.

“The situation is very difficult because a significant part of the city has already been infiltrated by the occupiers,” Denys, a Ukrainian drone operator, told The New York Times. “They’re still building up their presence, more and more, trying to completely saturate the city with their forces. When they encounter our positions, they engage in firefights.”

Logistics Hell on the Pokrovsk Direction.
Evacuation of an Injured Comrade.
Video from the Warriors of the 38th Separate Marine Brigade. pic.twitter.com/kySnMkngK7

— EMPR.media (@EuromaidanPR) October 29, 2025

Russia has been able to gain ground in Pokrovsk in large measure by changing tactics from massive frontal assaults to small groups of troops who’ve entered the city and set up drone operations, creating havoc on Ukraine’s ability to hold ground and supply its troops.

‼️🇷🇺”🅾️brave” troops are advancing in the Dnipropetrovsk region and storming Pokrovsk

▪️Fighters of the Center group of forces are actively destroying enemy infantry and equipment day and night.
▪️In support of the offensive, attack drone operators carry out precise strikes pic.twitter.com/eZiVhFBP1Z

— King Chelsea Ug 🇺🇬🇷🇺 (@ug_chelsea) October 29, 2025

Meanwhile, there is a large buildup of Russian troops and equipment preparing to take advantage of the current gains, according to the Ukrainian military.

“Enemy groups that managed to penetrate the city intend to advance northwest and north of Pokrovsk,” the 7th Corps of the Ukrainian Airborne Assault Troops, which oversees military operations in the area, explained on Wednesday. “In total, Russian troops have amassed approximately 27,000 troops, approximately 100 tanks, up to 260 armored combat vehicles, and up to 160 artillery pieces and mortars in the 7th Corps’ area of ​​responsibility.”

Still, Ukraine continues to impose a heavy cost on Russian forces, killing troops and destroying equipment.

Pokrovsk direction.
Operators of the 3rd “Svoboda” Operational Battalion burned a ruSSian BMD-4 along with its electronic warfare system using their fiber-optic-controlled drones 💥 pic.twitter.com/BlIDIIdaJh

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱△ 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇷 (@TheDeadDistrict) October 29, 2025

Against this backdrop of the largest Russian gains into Pokrovsk so far, Putin on Wednesday claimed that both that city and Kupiansk, located about 100 miles to the north in Kharkiv Oblast, are now surrounded. He suggested a temporary ceasefire so that journalists can witness the situation firsthand.

“The commanders of the groups are not against allowing representatives of the media, foreign and Ukrainian journalists, to enter the enemy’s encirclement zones so that they can go in and see with their own eyes what is happening there, confirm the condition of the surrounded Ukrainian troops,” Putin proclaimed.

The Russian leader added that he is making the offer about journalist access to these areas “so that the political leadership of Ukraine can make an appropriate decision regarding the fate of their citizens and servicemen, as was once done in ‘Azovstal’.” Putin was referring to the three-month siege of a massive steel plant in the city of Mariupol, where hundreds of Ukrainian troops held out until May 2022.

“We are ready to cease hostilities for a certain period of time for a few hours – two, three, six – so that journalists can enter, look around, talk to Ukrainian servicemen, and leave.” Putin added.

Putin: Our commanders don’t mind letting foreign and Ukrainian journalists into the encircled areas near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk to see the situation themselves and the state of surrounded Ukrainian troops.

Kyiv can decide their fate, as in Azovstal.
[Liar and terrorist]
1/ pic.twitter.com/4osvRt8pv3

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) October 29, 2025

Ukraine’s military pushed back against Putin’s claim.

“There is no encirclement of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk right now,” proffered Lt. Andriy Kovalenko, head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation. “They have a plan to encircle Pokrovsk, but currently, it is not being implemented.”

Kovalenko suggested that Putin’s encirclement claim is aimed at the United States, where the Trump administration is considering providing long-range weapons to Ukraine in an effort to press the Russian leader to end the war.

“Putin has used the military component of lies from the very beginning to broadcast it to the USA,” Kovalenko asserted. 

While Russian troops have broken into Pokrovsk, they have yet to capture it. However, even Ukrainian sources acknowledge how dire things are for Kyiv.

“The situation in Pokrovsk is on the brink of critical and continues to worsen to the point that it may already be too late to fix everything,” DeepState admitted on Wednesday.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is set to meet his U.S. counterpart Pete Hegseth in Kuala Lumpur on Friday, two Indian officials confirmed. The meeting, taking place on the sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), will mark the first direct interaction between the two leaders and comes at a delicate moment for bilateral relations strained by Washington’s punitive trade tariffs on Indian imports.

The discussions are expected to cover India’s ongoing plans to acquire six Boeing P-8I maritime patrol aircraft for its navy and a proposed new India-U.S. defence cooperation framework aimed at revitalising strategic ties. According to one official, the meeting could lay the groundwork for a bilateral visit either by Hegseth to New Delhi or Singh to Washington as both sides look to reset momentum in defence diplomacy.

Key Issues

Relations between India and the United States hit a low point earlier this year when U.S. President Donald Trump doubled tariffs on Indian imports to 50% to punish New Delhi for continuing to purchase Russian oil. The planned Singh-Hegseth meeting in Washington in August was consequently scrapped.

However, geopolitical shifts are now offering both sides an opening to rebuild ties. Following U.S. sanctions on Moscow’s top crude exporters, Indian refiners have reduced imports of Russian oil, aligning New Delhi’s actions more closely with Western interests. Washington, in turn, appears keen to re-engage with India to strengthen strategic cooperation in Asia particularly in countering China’s influence.

Why It Matters

The meeting is a key test of how far the India-U.S. strategic partnership can withstand trade disputes and geopolitical friction. Defence cooperation has been one of the strongest pillars of bilateral relations, spanning arms sales, joint exercises, and intelligence sharing under the Quad framework.

Reviving momentum now could reinforce India’s role as a security partner for the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific, especially as Washington seeks to deepen defence ties in the region amid rising tensions in the South China Sea and with China’s growing assertiveness.

India’s Defence Ministry: Seeking to secure technology transfers and diversify suppliers while preserving its strategic autonomy.

U.S. Department of Defense: Looking to reassure New Delhi of continued defence engagement despite trade frictions.

Boeing and U.S. defence contractors: Potential beneficiaries if new procurement deals move forward.

ASEAN nations: Watching the talks closely as regional defence alignments shift amid great-power competition.

What’s Next

Singh is expected to deliver formal remarks at the ASEAN meeting on November 1, where he may underscore India’s vision for regional security and freedom of navigation. If Friday’s talks go smoothly, analysts anticipate a high-level bilateral visit could follow within months a sign that the world’s two largest democracies are again moving toward strategic alignment after a period of economic friction.

For now, both sides remain cautious but pragmatic, aware that long-term interests especially in defence and Indo-Pacific security outweigh short-term trade disputes.

With information from Reuters.

A residential building floor collapsed as rescue workers were searching through the rubble, following overnight Russian drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s southern city of Zaporizhzhia. Officials said six children were among 13 injured in the strikes.