TODAY

Some 44,000 people displaced by flooding across the country as relief operations intensify amid widespread destruction.

Sri Lanka has made an appeal for international assistance as the death toll from heavy rains and floods triggered by Cyclone Ditwah rose to 123, with another 130 reported missing.

The extreme weather system has destroyed nearly 15,000 homes across the country, sending almost 44,000 people to state-run temporary shelters, the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) said on Saturday.

Although Cyclone Ditwah was heading towards neighbouring India to the north on Saturday, more landslides have hit the central district of Kandy, 115km (70 miles) east of the capital Colombo, with the main access road under water at several locations.

DMC Director-General Sampath Kotuwegoda said relief operations had been strengthened with the deployment of thousands of members of the army, navy and air force as he announced the latest casualty figures.

“Relief operations with the help of the armed forces are under way,” Kotuwegoda told reporters in Colombo.

Mahesh Gunasekara, the secretary-general of the Sri Lanka Red Cross Society, said many people have been stranded in various flood-hit areas as rescue crews are trying to reach them.

“Relief needs have been increasing. After two days, water has still been swelling,” he said.

“Although the cyclone is slowly moving away from the country, it is not over for us yet,” Gunasekara added.

Flooding prompted authorities to issue evacuation orders for those living along the banks of the Kelani River, which flows into the Indian Ocean from Colombo.

The Kelani burst its banks on Friday evening, forcing hundreds of people into temporary shelters, the DMC said.

The government issued an appeal for international help and asked Sri Lankans abroad to make cash donations to support nearly half a million affected people.

Officials said Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya had met with Colombo-based diplomats to update them on the situation and seek the help of their governments.

India was the first to respond, sending two planeloads of relief supplies, while an Indian warship already in Colombo on a previously planned goodwill visit donated its rations to help victims.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his condolences over the deaths in Sri Lanka and said New Delhi was ready to send more aid.

“We stand ready to provide more aid and assistance as the situation evolves,” Modi said on X.

While rain had eased in most parts of Sri Lanka on Saturday, including the capital, parts of the island’s north were still experiencing showers due to the residual effects of Cyclone Ditwah.

DMC officials said they expected flood levels to exceed those recorded in 2016, when 71 people were killed nationwide.

This week’s weather-related toll is the highest since June last year, when 26 people were killed following heavy rains.

In December, 17 people died in flooding and landslides.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff has resigned after investigators searched his home, as a widening corruption scandal engulfs one of Ukraine’s top negotiators in efforts to end the war. Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands reports from Kyiv with what we know.

Donald Trump has said that he will pardon the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking charges in a US court last year.

The US president said Hernández had been “treated very harshly and unfairly” in a social media post announcing the move on Friday.

Hernández was found guilty in March 2024 of conspiring to import cocaine into the US, and of possessing machine guns. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Trump also threw his support behind conservative presidential candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura in the Central American nation’s general election, due to be held on Sunday.

Hernández, a member of the National Party, who served as Honduras’s president from 2014 to 2022, was extradited to the US in April 2022 to stand trial for running a violent drug trafficking conspiracy and helping to smuggle hundreds of tons of cocaine to the US.

He was convicted by a New York jury two years later.

Polls indicate the Honduran election remains a toss-up between three candidates including Asfura, the former mayor of Tegucigalpa and leader of the conservative National Party.

Also in the running is Rixi Moncada, a former defence minister standing for the ruling left-wing Libre Party, and Salvador Nasralla, a television host with the centrist Liberal Party.

Trump criticised Moncada and Nasralla on Friday, writing that the latter was “a boderline Communist” who was only running to split the vote between Moncada and Asfura.

He characterised Asfura as “standing up for democracy” and praised him for campaigning against Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, with whom Trump has engaged in a war of words in recent months.

Nasralla has pledged to cut ties with Venezuela if he wins.

The Trump administration has accused the left-wing Maduro – whose re-election last year was dismissed as illegitimate by many countries – of being the leader of a drugs cartel.

It used countering drug trafficking as a justification for a military build-up in the Caribbean and has conducted strikes on vessels it says have been used for smuggling – though some analysts have described these moves as a means of pressuring Latin American leaders.

Honduras has been governed since 2022 by President Xiomara Castro, who has forged close ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

But Castro has maintained a co-operative relationship with the US, agreeing to preserve a long-running extradition treaty with it. Her country also hosts a US military base involved in targeting transnational organised crime in the region.

More than 80 people have been killed in the US strikes on vessels suspected of being involved in the transport of narcotics since they began in August.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said the aim of “Operation Southern Spear” was to eliminate “narcoterrorists”.

But legal experts have questioned the legality of the strikes, pointing out that the US has provided no evidence that the boats it has targeted were carrying drugs.

It’s that time again! The holidays are upon us. Although we took a hiatus last year due to logistical and timing issues, we are back in full force with this year’s TWZ holiday tee! And to go with the theme of a very stealthy Christmas, we are also bringing back some of our most beloved designs that we made with our partners at Blipshift for rare re-issues. So if you missed them the first time, here’s your shot!

Our new offering, ‘Waritos,’ pays homage to the nickname tossed at flying-wing designs and the snack that inspired it. “Flying Doritos” or “Doritos of Death” are becoming much more common with rapid developments in stealthy platforms here at home and around the globe. So these soaring wedge-shaped treats are only going to become more of a staple in our skies. For the U.S., the king of the hill in this category is the B-21 Raider. Northrop Grumman’s creation takes what it learned after decades of B-2 Spirit development and operations, and packages it into something even farther reaching, stealthier, more connected and adaptable.

With all this in mind, and due to the fact that we hear readers call it a Dorito all the time, we let the B-21 take center stage in our design.

Still, we must caution that while the B-21 may share a common shape with America’s favorite heavily seasoned tortilla chip, don’t take a bite out of the bomber — radar absorbent coatings are notoriously toxic.

Grab your human upper body-sized bag of “Waritos” at the link below. And remember, like all our designs, they are only available for a very short window of time!

LINK TO BUY “Waritos”

And while your at it, snap up these other low-observable classics we are reissuing:

“On A Silent Night,” one of our biggest selling shirts (and our only tree ornament) ever:

LINK TO BUY “On A Silent Night”

“Stealthier Things” was also a big crowd pleaser and it’s more relevant now than on our first release as the final season of Netflix’s biggest hit just dropped.

LINK TO BUY “Stealthier Things”

Finally, maybe our best inside joke shirt ever, “Tonopah Canyons,” which celebrates the F-117’s semi-clandestine ‘active’ retirement community.

LINK TO BUY “Tonopah Canyons”

The sale of these wearable gems ends Monday (so you can get them by Christmas), then the designs go back into the TWZ apparel vault. Also be sure to check the pull down menu when selecting your shirt as hoodies and other fabric offerings are available.

And to all our readers, commenting community, friends in the industry, and military and colleagues, we wish you all a fantastic holiday and the best for you and your family.

Thank you so much for all the continued support, we literally would not be here without all of you!

Contact the author: [email protected]

Can a significant and historic presence in Nicaea in commemoration of the 1700th anniversary of the first Ecumenical Council reshape the framework of global Christian dialogue? Pope Leo XIV stands on ground where the first common statement of Christian belief was formed seventeen centuries ago in the context of the first Ecumenical Council. The lake near Nicaea reflects a city marked by long memory. The visit does not seek public spectacle. It seeks depth.

Nicaea holds a rare form of significance. It represents a moment before fragmentation. A point where Christian leaders gathered to agree on the foundations of faith. The Creed shaped in this city became the common reference for churches that later followed separate paths. Modern reporting treats the return to this location as an event that reaches far beyond history.

Catholic analysts describe the entire journey as a platform for structured engagement in regions facing humanitarian risk. Diplomats notice that the visit creates three layers of meaning. The first is theological. The Creed continues to stand as the most stable reference point in the Christian world. It belongs to all. It excludes none. By returning to this shared foundation, the Pope frames dialogue on a level where long-standing differences do not erase the possibility of cooperation. Nicaea becomes neutral ground shaped by memory, not by competition.

The second layer concerns Turkey. The host country receives two ecclesiastical authorities with global reach. This presence allows Ankara to present a profile of stability and controlled engagement. The Turkish state seeks to gain diplomatic value by precisely managing an event of global religious interest. The visit shows that Turkey can provide a calm setting for high-level dialogue. This matters in a region where tensions remain visible and where regional trust is often fragile.

The third layer concerns the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Nicaea reflects continuity. The Ecumenical Patriarchate appears as an institution that maintains a steady link to the origins of Christian identity. The visit confirms that this link remains relevant for contemporary diplomacy. The Ecumenical Patriarchate gains space to articulate its role in matters that extend beyond the inner life of the Church. It operates as a voice that connects historical experience with public responsibility.

The papal journey signals a shift in diplomatic rhythm. States often work inside short cycles, shaped by elections, immediate pressures, and shifting alliances. Religious institutions work with longer horizons. Their strength lies in stability and consistent representation. This contrast produces space for initiatives that require patience. Current challenges in Lebanon, instability in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the need to support minority communities demand actors who maintain firm positions without rapid fluctuations. A coordinated presence in Nicaea offers such a foundation.

The significance of the visit grows through its simplicity. A prayer beside the lake, a joint statement, and the act of walking together inside the historic city produce a stable message. Cooperation becomes visible without exaggeration. The region gains a moment of calm narrative. Christian communities observe two ancient institutions approaching each other with clarity and restraint. This image contributes to a sense of balance in an environment shaped by uncertainty.

Nicaea becomes a diplomatic space in its own right. It is not an arena of negotiation. It is a site that offers shared memory with no tension. Modern diplomacy often searches for locations that can support conversation without pressure. Nicaea provides this naturally. The city stands outside polarized debates. It holds symbolic value without imposing a political agenda. A papal visit strengthens this character and gives Nicaea renewed relevance in discussions about stability and cooperation.

The effects of this visit may unfold gradually. Joint humanitarian initiatives could gain stronger coordination. Churches may open structured channels for supporting communities under stress in Lebanon, Jordan, and other regions of the Middle East. Dialogue among Christian bodies can develop with greater consistency. States in the Eastern Mediterranean may engage with these institutions in more formal ways. All these possibilities gain substance because the visit gives clear institutional legitimacy to a shared framework.

The return to Nicaea does not promise rapid or dramatic transformation. It shapes a foundation for patient diplomacy. The city provides steady ground in a world where constant crises weaken attention spans. Nicaea speaks through continuity. The visit reminds the international community that institutions with long historical roots can offer stable guidance in periods of instability. This is not nostalgia. It is recognition that durable structures can support fragile societies.

In this sense, Nicaea gains a renewed voice. The city becomes a reference point for future cooperation. The Papal presence demonstrates that sacred geography can still influence public life. The visit marks a shift toward long-range planning where values and institutions act together. It suggests that global dialogue benefits from places where memory and responsibility meet without conflict.

Nicaea does not present solutions. It provides a framework where solutions become possible. For contemporary diplomacy, this may be its greatest contribution. A quiet moment becomes a stable foundation. A historic city becomes a modern point of connection. And a visit shaped by restraint becomes a clear signal that cooperation can grow from shared origins, even in a complex and fragmented world.

Joaquin Guzman Lopez, one of four sons of the Sinaloa cartel’s ‘El Chapo’, changes his plea to guilty, court documents show.

A son of notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman will plead guilty next week in the United States to narcotics trafficking charges, according to federal court documents.

Joaquin Guzman Lopez, one of four sons of the jailed Sinaloa cartel leader “El Chapo”, originally pleaded not guilty after his arrest in July 2024 in Texas.

But federal documents released on Friday show that Guzman Lopez is to change his plea at a hearing set for Monday at the US District Court in Chicago.

Another of his three brothers, Ovidio Guzman, as part of a plea deal struck in exchange for a reduced sentence, pleaded guilty in July 2025 to conspiracy related to drug trafficking and two counts of participating in the activities of a criminal enterprise.

Ovidio Guzman also admitted that he and his brothers, known collectively as “Los Chapitos” (Little Chapos), had taken over their father’s operations within the cartel following his arrest in 2016.

Mexican broadcaster MVS Noticias said Guzman Lopez’s guilty plea could mean “a new chapter in the history of drug trafficking is about to be written”.

“This move has raised numerous questions about the possible ongoing negotiations between him and US authorities,” the news outlet said.

The ABC 7 Chicago news channel said federal prosecutors have said they will not now seek the death sentence for Guzman Lopez, and that there “is talk of a plea deal now in the works”.

He is due to appear in court in Chicago at 1:30pm (19:30 GMT) on Monday.

Two other “Chapitos” brothers, Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar and Jesus Alfredo Guzman Salazar, have also been indicted on drug trafficking charges in the US but remain at large.

Their 68-year-old father, “El Chapo”, is serving a life sentence at a supermax federal prison in Colorado following his arrest and conviction in 2019.

Guzman Lopez was taken into custody last year when he arrived in Texas on board a small private plane, along with the cofounder of the Sinaloa cartel, Ismael “Mayo” Zambada.

Zambada claimed to have been misled about the destination and that he was abducted by Guzman Lopez to be handed over against his will to authorities in the US.

Following the arrest, clashes intensified between two factions of the Sinaloa cartel, headed, respectively, by the “Los Chapitos” brothers and Zambada. The infighting led to approximately 1,200 deaths in Mexico and about 1,400 disappearances, according to official figures.

Officials in the US accuse the Sinaloa cartel of trafficking fentanyl to the country, where the synthetic drug has caused tens of thousands of overdose deaths in recent years, straining relations with Mexico.

The cartel is also one of six Mexican drug-trafficking groups that US President Donald Trump has designated as global terrorist organisations.

Additional sanctions against the two fugitive “Los Chapitos” brothers were announced by Washington in June for fentanyl trafficking, and the reward for their capture was increased to $10m each.

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s resignation comes amid an investigation into her role in luring South Africans to fight for Russia in war on Ukraine.

A daughter of former South African President Jacob Zuma has resigned from parliament amid allegations that she lured 17 men to fight as mercenaries in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s resignation on Friday comes after police said she was under investigation for her alleged role in luring South Africans to Russia. The police announcement came after a group of men aged 20 to 39 ended up on the front lines of the conflict in Ukraine.

Zuma-Sambudla had served as a member of parliament since June 2024 for uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), an opposition party created by her father in 2023 following his expulsion from South Africa’s then-governing African National Congress.

“The national officials have accepted comrade Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s decision to resign and support her efforts to ensure that these young South Africans are brought back safely to their families,” the MK Party’s national chairperson, Nkosinathi Nhleko, told a news conference.

MK officials said Zuma-Sambudla’s resignation was voluntary and that her departure from the National Assembly and all other public roles was effective immediately.

The MK’s Nhleko also said that the party was not involved in luring the men to Russia and that Zuma-Sambudla’s resignation was not an admission of guilt, but added that MK would help support the families of the men stranded in Ukraine.

Zuma-Sambudla was present at the news conference but did not speak, and has not publicly responded to the accusations from her half-sister.

South Africa’s government said earlier this month that 17 of its citizens were stuck in Ukraine’s Donbas region after being tricked into fighting for mercenary forces under the pretext of lucrative employment contracts.

Then, last weekend, police said they would investigate Zuma-Sambudla after her half-sister made a formal request for the probe into her and two other people.

According to police, an affidavit submitted by Zuma-Sambudla’s half-sister, Nkosazana Bonganini Zuma-Mncube, alleged that Zuma-Sambudla and two other people tricked the South Africans into fighting by promising to provide them with security training in Russia. The identities of the other two people were unclear.

The affidavit alleges the South Africans were handed over to a Russian mercenary group and forced to fight in the conflict. It also says that eight of the 17 men were members of Zuma-Sambudla’s and Zuma-Mncube’s extended family.

South African presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Al Jazeera that the government had received “distress calls” from the group caught up in the Ukraine war, and authorities were “working ever so quietly” at all levels “to secure their safe return”.

“But also, there is an investigation that is ongoing, that’s looking at how they were recruited, who was involved, and what were they promised?” Magwenya said.

On Thursday, Jordan became the latest country to rebuke Russia for recruiting its citizens to fight, following the killing of two Jordanian nationals.

While Jordan did not specifically reference Russia’s war on Ukraine, the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it would “take all available measures” to end the further recruitment of Jordanians, and called for Moscow to terminate the contracts of its currently enlisted citizens.

Ukraine says Moscow has recruited at least 18,000 foreign fighters from 128 countries, according to figures shared by Ukrainian Brigadier General Dmytro Usov, who also said that almost 3,400 foreigners have died fighting for Russia.

Michael Appel, reporting for Al Jazeera from Johannesburg, said Zuma-Sambudla is seen as a divisive political figure in South Africa, and is already facing “serious charges” related to unrest in South Africa in 2021 that led to the deaths of hundreds of people.

She has denied any wrongdoing in that case and has pleaded not guilty to inciting violence through social media posts.

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:

NANTWICH, ENGLAND – MAY 24: A general view inside the former RAF Hack Green secret nuclear bunker on May 24, 2023 in Nantwich, England. Hack Green played a central role in the defence of Britain for almost sixty years. It was chosen during WW2 to protect the land between Birmingham and Liverpool from hostile attack and as a location for the new RADAR equipment. The bunker went on to be used for shelter and protection during the Cold War. As relations between East and West thawed many of the UK’s nuclear bunkers were sold off. The Secret Bunker is now privately owned by the Siebert family and is run as a museum trust. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/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.

The Bunker is open!

Japan and China are in their most dangerous diplomatic crisis in years as escalating tensions over Taiwan have cancelled earlier hopes of post-pandemic improvement. After COVID-19 restrictions were mostly lifted by 2023, relations between Beijing and Tokyo seemed to slowly improve. However, by late 2025 a series of disputes especially over the so-called “Taiwan Question” have severely deteriorated into their lowest point in years.

The high-stakes diplomatic visit at the October 2025 APEC summit, where Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi immediately followed a stable-ties agreement with President Xi Jinping by meeting Taiwanese officials, only escalated tensions.

Escalation Through Diplomatic and Military Incidents

Sanae Takaichi, declared on November 7, 2025 during a cabinet meeting, that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could justify Japan using military force in the area. China quickly reacted. China’s U.N. ambassador Fu Cong accused Japan of violating international law warning the country of its “self-defense”. Raising such an issue all the way to the United Nations is a rare move we don’t often see in global geopolitics.

In mid-November 2025 China’s coast guard sailed through waters around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (islands which are administered by Japan but claimed by China) on patrol and Japanese Coast Guard vessels sent in response. Japan also sent out fighter jets, and even announced plans to deploy Japanese missiles on Yonaguni island (just 110 km from Taiwan) as a deterring measure.

China also announced travel advisories urging its citizens to avoid Japan, with large numbers of airlines offering ticket refunds. Meanwhile, Japanese officials warned their nationals in China to be cautious amid a rise in hostilities. Chinese authorities abruptly canceled planned concerts by Japanese bands, and state media halted screening of new Japanese films.

The Roots of Tensions: History, the U.S. and Taiwan

The island of Taiwan is an indispensably strategic asset for both countries: for China, Taiwan is the core of its national unity; for Japan the security of a separate and democratic Taiwan is now explicitly seen in Tokyo as linked to Japan’s own defense.

Japan’s long-standing policy of strategic ambiguity on the Taiwan Question, similar to the one upheld by the United States, has been abandoned by P.M. Takaichi. Authorities in Taipei have publicly supported Japan, urging China to show restraint and highlighting how an invasion would draw in allies including Japan and the U.S. .

Invoking Japan’s World War II era atrocities, China claims moral high ground or justify its own territorial aims. For example, Chinese official statements have reminded audiences of Tokyo’s past warcrimes in the region when attacking Japanese policies in the present. Japanese politicians (especially ones from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party) have grown hawkish to these types of statements, any incident easily tying into nationalist sentiment on both sides.

Rapidly expanding its defense capabilities the Japanese 2025 Defense White Paper explicitly names China as its “greatest strategic challenge” and commits to raising defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2026. New submarine fleets and the potential deployment of medium-range missiles on islands like Yonaguni, have developed into a broader security problem. This means that any Chinese blockade or attack on Taiwan would encircle Japan’s supply lines. Therefore to Japan’s leaders, Taiwan’s fate is inseparable from their own national survival. China in turn, claims an eventual military approach to Taiwan as inevitable by 2027.

Economic Dimensions in East Asia

China and Japan remain among each other’s largest economic partners even amid the confrontation. In 2024 China was still Japan’s second-biggest export market (after the US), with roughly $125 billion of Japanese goods sent there, mainly machinery and automobiles. This has been leveraged as a geopolitical tool. China’s Commerce Ministry now warns that Takaichi’s comments have “fundamentally undermined” the political foundation of economic ties.

After the Fukushima nuclear wastewater release in 2023, China imposed a blanket ban on all Japanese seafood imports. (Japan has pointed out that the UN’s nuclear agency found the discharge safe.) In mid-November 2025 China reinstated these seafood bans.

In another economic sector, Chinese tourists make up about a fourth of all visitors to Japan. Japanese travel agencies organising group tours told Reuters they lost ~80% of their remaining bookings for 2025.

U.S. Security and International Alliance Dynamics

U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass offered guarantees for its ally if China will militarily intervene and The State Department similarly declared its full support for Japan, explicitly opposing any unilateral attempts to alter the status-quo in the Taiwan Strait or East China Sea. U.S. President Donald Trump has so far avoided endorsing Takaichi’s statements, at least publicly.

China often accuses Japan of following the U.S. strategy of containment and have opposed Japan’s involvement in The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and its new defense pacts, such as with Australia, and more recently the Philippines. In contrast, Indonesia, Malaysia and others aim for neutrality.

Analysts suggest that China unusually strong criticism may reflect a strategic calculation, a hope that Prime Minister Takaichi’s term will be short-lived, just as the short tenures of other post-Abe premiers. For China, such a political victory could be a great geopolitical win in promoting its view on the Taiwan Question.

With information from Reuters, The Diplomat and South China Morning Post.

Juan Orlando Hernandez, member of Trump-endorsed candidate Nasry Asfura’s party, serving US drug trafficking sentence.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump says he will pardon the former leader of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, just days before the Central American country’s closely contested presidential election.

The announcement on Friday came two days before Honduras’s vote, in which Trump has endorsed conservative National Party candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura.

Hernandez was the party’s last successful presidential candidate and had served as president from 2014 to 2022. Last year, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison in the US after being extradited from Honduras on charges of drug trafficking.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that Hernandez has been “treated very harshly and unfairly”. He cited “many people that I greatly respect”.

Trump also again threw his support behind Asfura, who is facing four opponents in the scandal-plagued race. No clear frontrunner has yet emerged.

He added that a loss for Asfura would lead to a rupture in US support for the country of about 11 million, echoing a similar threat he made in support of Javier Milei before Argentina’s presidential election in October.

“If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad, because a wrong Leader can only bring catastrophic results to a country, no matter which country it is,” Trump wrote.

The US president and several right-wing figures have previously accused Rixi Moncada, the candidate for outgoing President Xiomara Castro’s left-leaning LIBRE party, as well as Salvador Nasralla, of the centre-right Liberal Party, of being in the pocket of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Both candidates have rejected the claims, which come as Trump has increased pressure against Maduro. That has included surging US military assets to the region and floating possible land operations.

Drug trafficking conviction

Despite Trump’s statements, the decision to pardon Hernandez sits uncomfortably with his administration’s pledges to target drug cartels and narcotic smuggling into the US.

That has included designating several cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations” and launching strikes on alleged drug smugglers in international waters. Rights groups have said the attacks are tantamount to extrajudicial killings and likely violate both domestic and international law.

During his trial, prosecutors accused Hernandez of working with powerful cartels to smuggle more than 400 tonnes of cocaine en route to the US. That included ties to the Mexico-based Sinaloa cartel, one of the criminal groups designated by the Trump administration as “terrorists”.

Hernandez allegedly relied on millions of dollars in cartel bribes to fuel his political rise.

At the time of his sentencing, former US Attorney General Merrick Garland said Hernandez used his presidency “to operate the country as a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed to operate with virtual impunity, and the people of Honduras and the United States were forced to suffer the consequences.”

France says it will reintroduce a form of voluntary military service in response to growing tensions with Russia.

The announcement comes weeks after Germany said it plans to assess young people’s suitability for military duty.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced European states to reassess their defence. So, could conscription return?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Jacques Reland – Senior research fellow in European affairs

Paul Beaver – Former soldier and defence analyst

Peter Nielsen – Former commander of NATO’s Force Integration Unit in Lithuania

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will throw out all executive orders issued under predecessor Joe Biden that he believes were signed using an autopen, pushing a dubious claim to delegitimise Democratic policies.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump, a Republican, estimated that the majority of Biden’s orders were executed with autopen, a machine that mimics a given signature.

“Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect,” Trump wrote.

Trump has long maintained that Biden — who was 82 when he left office in January — was not in control of the executive office due to his advanced age and declining mental state.

The Republican leader, himself 79 years old, reiterated that message in Friday’s post and threatened to prosecute Biden if the Democrat denied it.

“I am hereby cancelling all Executive Orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the Autopen did so illegally,” Trump said.

“Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.”

The autopen and similar mechanical signature devices have a long history in the White House, stretching back to the third US president, Thomas Jefferson, in the early 19th century. Trump himself has used the device, particularly during his first term.

But Trump has had an acrimonious relationship with his Democratic predecessors, including Biden and former President Barack Obama.

He has trolled Biden in particular for his age and his use of the autopen while in office. After setting up a “presidential walk of fame” near the White House Rose Garden earlier this year, Trump replaced Biden’s portrait with a picture of the mechanical device.

He recently showed off the picture to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during a visit this month.

Biden and Trump faced each other twice in presidential elections: once in 2020, when Trump lost, and once in 2024, when Biden dropped out of the race. Trump ultimately won the latter.

He has also consistently denied his defeat in the 2020 election, falsely claiming widespread voter fraud.

Trump has made other misleading and unfounded statements about Biden, including that White House staffers took advantage of the Democrat’s declining age to sign policy documents without his knowledge.

There is, however, no definitive proof that the autopen was used under Biden without his consent. Biden himself denied the allegation in a June statement.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” he wrote. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Nevertheless, Trump revisited that allegation in Friday’s message on his platform Truth Social.

“The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him,” the Republican leader wrote.

Friday’s announcement is the latest effort by Trump to frame the actions of his political rivals as illegitimate.

In March, for instance, Trump posted a Truth Social message attempting to invalidate the pardons Biden issued before his departure from the White House.

Biden had controversially awarded “preemptive” pardons to politicians who served on a House select committee investigating Trump for his actions on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

“The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, and OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump wrote in March, reiterating familiar claims.

“Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!”

Legal experts largely dismissed the president’s post at the time as unconstitutional, as US law does not require presidential pardons to be signed in any given way — or even that they be written down.

A 2005 memo from the US Office of Legal Counsel also explains, “The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law.”

It adds that using an autopen to “affix the President’s signature” to legislation — or “directing a subordinate” to do so — is considered acceptable.

Still, Biden did face significant public concern about whether his age had hindered his ability to carry out his duties, particularly in the final years of his four-year term.

A disastrous performance in the June 2024 presidential debate heightened those concerns, as Biden appeared stiff and struggled to maintain his train of thought.

Members of the Democratic Party afterwards pressured Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race, a step he eventually took in July of that year.

Some critics have speculated whether Biden’s age diminished his ability to dedicate time and attention to areas such as foreign policy, giving senior staff members greater influence over policymaking.

This year, Biden revealed he had advanced prostate cancer, and he is currently undergoing radiation therapy.

Should Trump complete his second term, he will also be 82 years old, a few months older than Biden was at the end of his presidential term. Concerns about age and mental health have also dogged Trump’s time in the White House.

Just this week, The New York Times ran an article titled, “Shorter Days, Signs of Fatigue: Trump Faces Realities of Aging in Office”. It detailed instances where Trump appeared to fall asleep during public appearances and described how Trump has limited his public appearances during his second term.

Trump responded on social media by calling the female reporter on the story “ugly” and posting that he had “aced” his physical and cognitive exams.

Piastri’s pole came despite a major oversteer moment on the entry to Turn Four, which he estimated had cost him about 0.2secs and he described as “pretty scary – turning left in a right-hand corner is never good, especially when you’re doing however many hundreds of kilometres an hour you’re doing there”.

Underlying Verstappen’s troubles, the Dutchman was beaten by his team-mate Yuki Tsunoda in qualifying for the first time this season, the Japanese faster by 0.009secs.

Verstappen was complaining, with added swear words, through the session over the radio about the car bouncing.

Despite that, he was fastest in the first session, and within 0.1secs of the McLaren drivers in the second. But he damaged his floor with an off at Turn Four on his first flying lap in the final session, compromising his car’s performance.

It was the first time he had been out-qualified by a team-mate since the 2024 Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

Verstappen said: “Not good. From the first lap just really bad bouncing and very aggressive understeer that would switch into oversteer in high speed. Just not what you want. We tried to change a few things on the wheel but it never really worked.

“With this balance, in the sprint it will not be a lot of fun. It will be more about trying to survive and then make some changes going into qualifying.”

Although overshadowed by the title fight, arguably the star of sprint qualifying was Fernando Alonso, who put the Aston Martin fourth on the grid – an outstanding performance for a team that lies eighth in the constructors’ championship.

“One of the best results of the year,” he said. “Tough circuit, high-speed sections and the car seemed in the window already in first practice. A bit of stress in Q2 because of traffic but we made it into Q3 and then we put a lap together.

“Twenty-four years’ experience, 44 years old, it has some disadvantages. I get a bit more tired with the jet lag.

“But I know the tracks, the tyres, and know how to extract everything on Fridays, and then on Saturdays it’s true we open parc ferme and make some small changes to the cars and everyone seems to get on top of the circuit.”

Behind him, Mercedes’ Kimi Antonelli was seventh, with the Williams of Carlos Sainz and Alex Albon sandwiching Leclerc.

Hamilton said almost nothing in his sole media interview after the session.

Asked how tricky the car was, he said: “Same as always.”

Naval mutinies have long captured the public imagination, but, for the most part, open rebellions on the high seas are consigned to the Age of Exploration, in centuries past. One notable exception occurred in the Soviet Navy 50 years ago this month and, based on available evidence, almost led to the use of nuclear weapons. The mutiny aboard the frigate Storozhevoy is all the more remarkable for the fact that the Kremlin attempted to cover up its existence, with details only emerging in public a decade after its bloody end.

The story was dramatic enough, and its potential implications were worrisome enough for it to be an inspiration for Tom Clancy’s iconic Cold War novel (which in turn led to the film), The Hunt for Red October. This is the story of the fictional Soviet submarine captain Marko Ramius, who apparently goes rogue while commanding a highly advanced ballistic missile submarine.

In the real-life incident, the protagonist was 36-year-old Valery Mikhailovich Sablin, a political officer onboard the Storozhevoy, a Project 1135 anti-submarine warfare frigate, known to NATO as the Krivak I class, and with a displacement of around 3,000 tons. A representative image of a Krivak I is seen at the top of this story, at anchor.

At the time, this was one of the most advanced surface combatants in Soviet service. It had been commissioned in 1974, and it was assigned to the Baltic Fleet. The primary anti-submarine armament of the Krivak I was the quadruple launcher for URPK-4 Metel’ missiles (known to NATO as SS-N-14 Silex), located on the bow, each of which transported a torpedo payload. This feature led to the NATO mnemonic ‘Hot dog pack, smokestack, guns in back — KRIVAK,’ to aid identification.

Unlike Ramius, Sablin was seeking not to defect, but to urge a rethinking of the communist revolution, since he was convinced the Soviet regime had strayed dangerously far from the Marxist principles that he believed in.

Sablin’s plan was to take advantage of the excitement surrounding the anniversary of the 1917 revolution, celebrated every November 7. At the time, the Storozhevoy was moored in Riga, in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. Most reports agree that, apart from its primary anti-submarine missiles, the frigate was fully armed, including with surface-to-air missiles for point defense, anti-submarine torpedoes, and 76mm guns.

Sablin wanted to take control of the Storozhevoy and sail east, to Leningrad, where he would arrive alongside the museum ship Aurora (the cruiser that was and remains a potent symbol of the 1917 revolution), and incite something like an uprising against the current regime, under Premier Leonid Brezhnev.

The mutiny began on November 8, 1975, by which time Sablin had already convinced a 20-year-old naval rating, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shein, and other sympathetic crewmen to assist him.

With a third of the 194-man crew on shore leave, Sablin and Shein surprised and locked up the ship’s commanding officer. The remaining officers were summoned to a meeting, where Sablin explained the situation. Shein stood outside the door armed with a pistol. Those officers who refused to join the mutiny were also locked up.

In the meantime, two crew members had managed to escape the frigate, climbing onto a mooring buoy, then attracting attention. However, their story was not initially taken seriously.

When Sablin became aware that his plan had likely been revealed, he gave up on the idea of reaching Leningrad and instead decided to sail out into international waters, from where he could transmit the speech he had prepared and, he hoped, trigger a new revolution.

Traveling radio silent, with no radar turned on, the Storozhevoy could not move as quickly as usual, since navigation was degraded. Nevertheless, at around 2:50 a.m., the frigate moved out into the Gulf of Riga.

Once it was noticed that the frigate had set sail, a response was launched but seems to have been somewhat slowed down as a result of the effects of copious alcohol consumed in the course of the weekend’s revolutionary celebrations.

Still, 45 minutes after the Storozhevoy sailed, other ships began their pursuit.

Unfortunately for Sablin, the Soviet authorities were now convinced that he must be poised to defect to the West.

Early on the morning of November 9, a large flotilla was ordered to find the Storozhevoy, including warships sailing from Liepaja, also in the Latvian SSR. Among them were small missile corvettes, faster than the Krivak I.

It seems the first vessels to sight the Storozhevoy were torpedo-armed patrol boats from the Soviet Border Troops, who ordered the frigate to stop, but their signals were ignored. They were then ordered to fire upon the rogue warship, but this order was rescinded before they could open fire.

The reason for the change of plan was that the incident had now been passed higher up through the chain of command, and news of it had reached Moscow.

In the meantime, Sablin had sent an encrypted telegram to the commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy, laying out his demands. These included declaring the shop a free territory, permission to make a radio and TV broadcast, safe anchorage in Soviet waters, and more. The navy rejected the demands and instead called for Sablin to return the Storozhevoy to port.

A furious Sablin then tried to broadcast a message, outlining the reasons for the mutiny, on an open channel. Unbeknownst to Sablin, the radio operator tasked with the job again used the encrypted channel.

At around 6:00 a.m., the Soviet premier was woken and informed of the situation. Terrified by the prospect of the modern Krivak I class falling into an adversary’s hands, Brezhnev now called for the destruction of the Storozhevoy at all costs. This fear seems to have entirely overridden any concern to hear out the demands of the mutineers, if they were even taken seriously.

Several efforts were made to attack the frigate.

First, it had to be located.

On the morning of the 9th, two Il-38 May maritime patrol aircraft, flying out of Riga, began to look for it. One of them found it at around 8:05 a.m. in the Irben Sound, the main exit out of the Gulf of Riga and into the Baltic Sea.

Ultimately, the commander of Naval Aviation of the Baltic Fleet called for Tu-16K-10-26 Badger-C bombers to strike the Storozhevoy with K-10S (AS-2 Kipper) anti-ship cruise missiles, including authorizing the use of nuclear-armed weapons. Nine of these bombers were launched from Bykhov Air Base in the Belarusian SSR at 8:30 a.m. At least one of the aircraft appears to have been carrying a nuclear-tipped version of the K-10S missile. As well as a single K-10S, the Tu-16K-10-26 sub-variant of the Badger was able to carry two KSR-2 (AS-5 Kelt) or the more modern, supersonic KSR-5 (AS-6 Kingfish) anti-ship cruise missiles, but available accounts don’t mention that the aircraft were loaded with these.

The bombers were in the vicinity of the Storozhevoy shortly after 09:00 a.m. For around an hour, the Tu-16s repeatedly dropped below the cloud base and made passes of the frigate, with the aim of forcing Sablin to surrender. Warning shots were fired using the bombers’ 23mm defensive cannons. The Badger-C had a fairly heavy cannon armament, with two 23mm AM-23 cannons each in remotely operated dorsal and ventral turrets and a crewed tail turret, but they were not designed for engaging surface targets.

When the cannons didn’t have the desired effect, the Badger crews instead took to flying very low over the warship, selecting full power on their twin turbojets, and successfully forcing the ship to deviate from its course.

By 10:05 a.m., the Storozhevoy was headed west, toward the Swedish island of Gotland, though Sablin always insisted his original plan was not to enter Swedish waters.

Such evasive action only increased the concerns of the Soviet authorities, who now called into action the Yak-28 Brewer tactical bombers based at Tukums, in the Latvian SSR. Armed with free-fall bombs, these were a more flexible option than the Tu-16s. The Yak-28 unit was informed that they were to attack a foreign warship that had penetrated the Gulf of Riga. However, the unit was also unfamiliar with attacking naval targets and initially failed to locate the Storozhevoy. There was also no coordination between the (Air Force) Yak-28 unit and the (Navy) Il-38 and Tu-16 units.

By 10:00 a.m., there were around 20 Yak-28s in the air and, by 10:20 a.m., these had begun to attack, from a height of around 1,500 feet. Unfortunately for the Air Force, it was the wrong target: The Brewer crews had misidentified a Soviet cargo ship, onto which fragmentation bombs now rained. The ship’s crew radioed for help, and the attack was called off, with no injuries.

At 10:28 a.m., the Yak-28s located the rogue warship and were ordered to hit it, with no warning shots this time. Again, however, bombs were dropped on the wrong target, namely the Komsomolets Litvy, a Project 50 or Riga class frigate, and the lead ship in the flotilla that was chasing the Storozhevoy. The ship launched signal rockets, which were misidentified as anti-aircraft fire, before the pilots realized they had again hit the wrong ship.

The Soviet commanders then called upon the Tu-16 units once more. The pursuit flotilla was ordered to move, and the bombers tasked with holding station behind the Storozhevoy, from where K-10S missiles would be launched.

The order then came at 10:16 a.m. to launch a missile, including the protocol for the use of nuclear weapons. The Tu-16 flown by the commander of the unit, Colonel Arkhip Savinkov, took position.

By this stage, other members of the frigate’s crew understood that their time was nearly up. A group of them freed the captain and other detained officers, who then armed themselves and stormed the bridge. In the confrontation that followed, Sablin was shot in the leg and was then locked up. The freed captain then sent a message that the mutiny was over.

With the Tu-16 preparing to launch, the headquarters of the Baltic Fleet received an urgent message that the Storozhevoy had surrendered. Orders went out to stop the attack, but Savinkov, the Tu-16 unit’s commander, either didn’t receive them or ignored them, perhaps determining that they were meant for the Yak-28 unit.

For another two tense minutes, after the crew had messaged their surrender, the Tu-16 unit was still hunting the Storozhevoy with the intention to destroy it. Savinkov then reported a radar malfunction. Whether this was true, or a result of him not wishing to unclear a nuclear strike (especially against his countrymen), or that he was now too close to the target to launch a missile, he called off his attack. Puzzlingly, another two Tu-16s from the same unit briefly continued their attack plan. It’s unclear if these Badgers carried Kipper anti-ship missiles armed with conventional warheads, if there was some kind of breakdown in communication between the formation, or if all the bombers involved actually had no real desire to attack the warship.

Regardless, at 11:00 a.m., the fire-damaged Komsomolets Litvy reached the Storozhevoy. With an Il-38 and more Tu-16s patrolling overhead, and several other patrol boats in the vicinity, the boarding party of 15 men took over the vessel. The frigate changed course and was then anchored off the island of Saaremaa. The crew was then returned by boat to Riga. Here they were interviewed, with the 12 sailors identified as mutineers — among them, Sablin and Shein — were arrested and taken to Moscow.

The incident had highlighted the poor combat readiness and inefficient chain of command within the Baltic Fleet, and efforts were immediately made to cover it up, including the destruction of documents.

Nevertheless, details leaked out, and some presumed details of the mutiny began to be published in the Western media. A key source of information was Swedish military intelligence, which had monitored the events via signals intelligence (SIGINT). Early Western reports included erroneous accounts that as many as 15 sailors had been killed aboard the Storozhevoy and that 35 more were killed on the ship that was accidentally attacked — the Komsomolets Litvy.

As for the two ringleaders, Shein was imprisoned, while Sablin was sentenced to death for treason and executed in August 1976.

In retrospect, the idealistic Sablin’s plan was likely always doomed to failure. It remains fortunate, however, that his was the only life lost in an incident that could have had much more serious repercussions. Indeed, the available evidence that has emerged since the mutiny suggests that, back in November 1975, only a few minutes stood between the Soviet Navy launching a nuclear strike against one of its own vessels.

Ultimately, perhaps, Colonel Arkhip Savinkov, as commander of what appears to have been a nuclear-armed Tu-16, might have been the one responsible for preventing what could have been a catastrophe. Ironically, the fact that he didn’t launch his missile, for whatever reason, meant that he would be viewed with suspicion by the Soviet military leadership for the rest of his career.

The author is indebted to the work of Michael Friedholm von Essen, whose authoritative account of the mutiny aboard the Storozhevoy is published by Helion & Company.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Scotland-based rocket company Skyrora has secured a major boost in its latest funding round, thanks to a strategic investment from Ukrainian entrepreneur Max Polyakov. The new capital strengthens Skyrora’s central position in the UK’s plans to establish its own space launch capability.

Closing the UK Launch Gap

Skyrora’s Growing Launch Capabilities

Historic Launch Licence

Sovereign Launch for the UK

Polyakov’s Global Vision

Max Polyakov’s involvement brings not only funding but also a shared vision. He has long championed the idea that space technologies must address global challenges such as climate change and resource management. According to Polyakov, “There is a misconception that by investing in the space sector, we are ignoring significant issues on Earth. But we are no longer going to space just for the achievement: we are going there to seek climate solutions, and we must proactively minimise our impact.” His philosophy perfectly aligns with Skyrora’s mission to make space activity a driver of sustainability on Earth.

Max Polyakov, a Ukrainian-born entrepreneur and economist, is the founder of Noosphere Ventures, a US-based investment fund focused on space and advanced technologies. Through Noosphere, he has built a vertically integrated ecosystem that includes companies like EOS Data Analytics, Dragonfly Aerospace, and SETS.

Building a Global Space Network

Ever since Donald Trump declared that he could end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours”, much of the world has been waiting to see whether he could force Moscow and Kyiv into a settlement. Millions of views and scrolls, miles of news feeds and mountains of forecasts have been burned on that question.

Trump fed this expectation by insisting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was running out of options and would eventually have to accept his deal. In reality, the opposite is true. It is Trump who has no leverage. He can threaten Nicolas Maduro with potential military action in or around Venezuela, but he has no influence over Vladimir Putin. Any sanctions harsh enough to damage Russia would also hit the wider Western economy, and there is not a single leader in the West willing to saw off the branch they are sitting on.

Armed intervention is even more implausible. From the first days of the full-scale invasion, NATO decided to support Ukraine with weapons and training while avoiding steps that could trigger a direct NATO–Russia war. That position has not changed.

As a result, Ukraine has been left in a position where, with or without sufficient support from its allies, it is in effect fighting Russia alone. All talk of peace or a ceasefire has proved to be a bluff, a way for Vladimir Putin to buy time and regroup. Putin’s strategy relies on outlasting not only Ukraine’s army but also the patience and political unity of its allies. The United States has now circulated a revised version of its peace framework, softening some of the most contentious points after consultations with Kyiv and several European governments. Yet the Kremlin continues to demand major territorial concessions and the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces. Without this, Russia says it will not halt its advance. Ukraine, for its part, maintains that it will not surrender territory.

Once it became clear that the diplomatic track offered no breakthrough, the United States all but halted arms deliveries to Ukraine. Officials blamed the federal government shutdown, although the real cause was unlikely to be a shortage of movers at the Pentagon. Either way, American military assistance has dwindled to a trickle, consisting mostly of supplies approved under the Biden administration. At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary-designate Austin Dahmer said: “I’m not aware of any pause in [US military] aid to Ukraine.” It sounded less like a serious assessment and more like an admission of ignorance. Every Ukrainian soldier can feel the consequences of the sharp reduction in American weapons. Every resident of Kyiv and other cities can feel the shortage of air defence systems.

Europe has not filled the gap. The European Union’s defence industry and joint-procurement schemes have produced many promises but little real money. A few billion euros have been formally committed and far less has been delivered. Member states prefer to rearm themselves first and Ukraine second, although their own programmes are moving slowly. The EU remains divided between governments willing to take greater risks to support Kyiv and others that fear provoking Russia or weakening their own budgets. Brussels is now pushing a plan to use frozen Russian assets to back a loan of up to 140 billion euros ($162bn) for Ukraine, which could support Kyiv’s budget and defence spending over the next two years. Several key member states that host most of those reserves remain cautious, and without unanimity, the plan may stall.

This leaves Ukraine expanding its own production and fighting with whatever arrives and whatever is not siphoned off by corrupt figures such as Tymur Mindich, who is under investigation in a major procurement case. For now, Ukraine can slow the enemy at enormous cost, but this is nowhere near enough to win.

The army is under-supplied. The government has failed to sustain motivation or mobilise the country; in fact, it has achieved the opposite. Men are fighting their fourth year of war, while women cannot wait indefinitely. Divorces are rising, exhaustion is deepening, and morale is collapsing. Prosecutors have opened more than 255,000 cases for unauthorised absence and more than 56,000 for desertion since 2022. In the first 10 months of 2025 alone, they registered around 162,500 AWOL cases and 21,600 desertion cases. Other reports suggest that more than 21,000 troops left the army in October, which is the highest monthly figure so far. Social injustice is widening.

Demographically, the picture is equally bleak. Ukraine’s population has fallen from more than 50 million at independence to about 31 million in territory controlled by Kyiv as of early 2025. Births remain below deaths and fertility rates have dropped to about one child per woman.

Against this backdrop, Ukraine is left with three strategic options.

The first option is to accept Putin’s terms. This would mean capitulating, losing political face and giving up territory, but it would preserve a Ukrainian state. It would also lock the country into long-term vulnerability.

The second option is a radical overhaul of Ukraine’s political and military leadership. This would involve rebuilding mobilisation, restructuring the command system and re-engineering the war effort from the ground up. Ukraine cannot fight a long war with institutions that were designed for peacetime politics and rotational deployments.

The third option is to change nothing and maintain the status quo. Ukraine would continue launching precision strikes on Russian oil infrastructure in the hope of grinding down the Kremlin’s economy and waiting for Putin to die. This is an illusion. If such strikes could not break a smaller Ukraine, they will not break a country many times larger in economic, territorial and demographic terms. Damage will be inflicted, but nowhere near enough to force Russia to stop.

Judging by recent statements from Zelenskyy and several of his European partners, Ukraine has effectively committed itself to the third option. The question is how long this approach can be sustained. Even setting aside morale and exhaustion after four years of war, the financial outlook is bleak. Ukraine faces a vast budget deficit and public debt that is likely to exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product. Europe has failed to assemble the necessary funds, Belgium has not released frozen Russian assets and economic growth across much of the continent remains weak. Any significant increase in support would require political courage at a time when voters remain sensitive to the recent inflation surge. The EU is also unable to tie the United States to long-term commitments in the current political climate in Washington.

All this leads to an unavoidable conclusion. If Ukraine intends to survive as a state, it will eventually have to take the second path and undertake a radical restructuring of its political and military leadership. Once that moment arrives, Moscow’s terms will be harsher than they are now. The Russian ultimatum is likely to expand from claims on four regions to demands for eight, along with strict control mechanisms, demilitarisation and further concessions.

Radical change is needed immediately, before Ukraine’s strategic options narrow further and before its ability to resist collapses with them.

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

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are pushing hard to take Kordofan. In the sights of the paramilitary force – accused of committing grave human rights abuses during Sudan’s war – are the cities and towns of the vast central region, such as Babnusa and el-Obeid.

The momentum is currently with the RSF, which defeated their Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) opponents in el-Fasher, in the western region of Darfur, last month, unleashing a tidal wave of violence where they killed at least 1,500 people and forced thousands more to flee.

SAF soldiers are still able to repel RSF fighters in West Kordofan’s Babnusa, a major transport junction connecting several parts of the country. But continuing to hold the city will be difficult for the SAF, and if it does fall, then the RSF will likely press forward towards North Kordofan’s el-Obeid, and a vital gateway towards the capital Khartoum.

The RSF were forced out of Khartoum in March, a time when the SAF seemed to be on the ascendancy in the more-than-two-year war.

But now the tables have turned, and having lost Darfur completely with the fall of el-Fasher, the SAF now risks losing Kordofan, too.

“The RSF has momentum, which they will carry on through with,” said Dallia Abdelmoniem, a Sudanese political analyst, who pointed out that an RSF ally, the SPLM-N, already controls the Nuba Mountains region of South Kordofan.

“Hemedti was never going to be satisfied with just controlling the Darfur region – he wants the whole country,” she said, using a nickname for Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the head of the RSF.

With the SAF overstretched and cut off from reliable arms procurement, Abdelmoniem believes that the balance of power is shifting. “The SAF is weakened unless they miraculously get their hands on weaponry equal, if not better, to what the RSF has.”

Ceasefire talks

It is notable that the RSF advances have taken place despite ongoing mediation efforts from the so-called “Quad” – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States – aimed at reaching an end to the fighting.

The head of the SAF, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, last Sunday rejected a ceasefire agreement proposed by the Quad, saying that the deal benefitted the RSF. He also criticised the UAE’s involvement in the Quad, accusing it of supporting the RSF, a claim Abu Dhabi has long denied.

For its part, the RSF announced on Monday an apparently unilateral three-month ceasefire. However, since the announcement, the RSF has continued to attack Babnusa.

The Quad mediation efforts, which have included a push from US President Donald Trump, may perplexingly be the reason for the recent escalation in fighting.

“The pressure for a ceasefire coming from the Quad, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is pushing the SAF and the RSF to gain a territorial advantage as quickly as possible in case something shifts during the mediation,” said Kholood Khair, the founding director of Confluence Advisory. “Each side will always try to maximise its position before the talks.”

Khair points out that both sides had been amassing weapons over the summer rainy season, when conditions were more difficult for fighting. Now that conditions are dry, the weapons are being “put to use”, particularly as the RSF is emboldened following its victory in el-Fasher.

The strategic importance of Kordofan makes it an important prize, particularly if any ceasefire deal freezes the areas under the control of each side.

“[Kordofan’s] location makes it important to control due to its agricultural, livestock, and petroleum resources,” said Retired Lieutenant Colonel Omar Arbab. “The battle for Kordofan is not merely territorial – it is about controlling Sudan’s economic backbone.”

Arbab added that there is a military logic to the RSF’s push towards Babnusa, as it is the gateway linking their forces in Darfur to el-Obeid. “If the RSF controls it, they could pose a threat to el-Obeid – and certainly will attempt to besiege it.”

“They’ve been shelling it consistently for weeks. If they take it, then they will redeploy some of those troops toward el-Obeid,” said Khair. Should the city fall, she warned, the political shockwave will be enormous. “It’s a huge mercantile centre, a regional capital, and a major economic win. It also brings the RSF several steps closer to Khartoum.”

Potential partition

Beyond the battlefield, analysts warn that Kordofan’s escalation is intensifying the fault lines fragmenting Sudan’s political and ethnic map.

Khair pointed out that the fall of el-Fasher had cemented the territorial fragmentation of western Sudan, but added that there were also “dozens of armed groups”, either aligned to the SAF, the RSF, or independent, that each controlled their own fiefdoms.

For Khair, the real driver of Sudan’s disintegration is not territory but identity. “This war has become extremely ethnicised, by both the SAF and the RSF, so they can mobilise troops. Because of that, you now have a split of communities who believe their ethnic interests are served by the SAF, by the RSF, or by other groups.”

This ethnic competition, she said, is now steering the trajectory of the war more than military strategy. “There’s no singular Sudanese project right now – not intellectually, militarily, politically, or economically – and that is catalysing fragmentation.”

Abdelmoniem, however, warns that some within the SAF may be willing to accept fragmentation. “Undoubtedly, there are elements within the SAF who would be more than happy for further fragmentation of the country so they can continue to rule over the Arab Sudanese side,” she said. “Losing Darfur is not an issue, and they’re willing to forgo the alliance with the joint forces over it,” she added, referring to former rebel groups largely based in Darfur and allied to the SAF.

Many Sudanese in Darfur are non-Arab, and have been targeted in particular by RSF attacks.

But any approach that abandons Darfur, Abdelmoniem believes, is unsustainable. “Without the joint forces and other groups under their political-military umbrella, they cannot win. And how do you contend with public opinion when the Sudanese people will view the SAF as the entity that lost or broke up the country?”

Arbab takes a more cautious view. While he acknowledges the reality of de facto breakage, he believes formal partition is unlikely. “Division is not currently on the table,” Arbab said, “because the structure of alliances on both sides requires a political project encompassing all of Sudan. Social complexities and the diversity of actors make such an option extremely difficult.”

Humanitarian fallout

As the front lines expand, Korodofan now faces the prospect of a humanitarian disaster on the scale seen in Darfur. Abdelmoniem drew a direct parallel to the warnings issued before the fall of el-Fasher. “The atrocities committed will be on a different scale,” she cautioned. “We might not get the video uploads like before, but the crimes will be committed.”

Abdemoniem said international inaction has emboldened all armed actors. “That sense of impunity prevails and will only increase the longer the international community is content with releasing statements and not doing much else.”

Arbab echoed that concern. Global attention, he said, was focused on el-Fasher because the violence there contained “elements of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. But Kordofan’s dynamics differ. In Babnusa, SAF and RSF forces come from the same overlapping tribal and ethnic communities, making the violence distinct from Darfur’s ethnic massacres. Yet the risks remain profound: reprisal killings, sieges, and mass displacement.

Khair warned that humanitarian access to Kordofan is already near impossible. “I don’t see SAF granting access, and I don’t see the RSF granting access into areas they control,” she said. Unlike Darfur, Kordofan lacks open borders where aid could be routed. “Access issues become even more heightened when you’re away from an international border.”

A search is under way for a British man who fell overboard from a cruise ship off the coast of Tenerife.

The Spanish coastguard said it had been coordinating search and rescue efforts for the 76-year-old since 09:48 local time (09:48 GMT) on Thursday.

The incident happened on the Marella Explorer 2, operated by TUI, while it was located just north-west of the Spanish island.

TUI’s Marella Cruises said the man was “seen entering the water while the ship was on passage to La Gomera”, adding that it was supporting his family and working with local authorities.

In a statement, the coastguard said the ship participated in the search before docking in Santa Cruz de Tenerife in the early hours of Friday.

Rescue boats, two helicopters and a specialist search and rescue aircraft have been deployed to the area.

Lesley-Anne Kelly, a passenger on the ship, recalled the moment an alarm sounded while she was having breakfast with her mother on Thursday morning.

She said the alarm was followed by an announcement of “man overboard”.

Mrs Kelly said the captain told passengers the ship had to stay in place until the coastguard allowed it to leave, and later announced that the search had been stood down due to darkness.

“It was pretty sombre last night, especially after the announcement that they were standing down the search,” she said.

Passengers were told that witnesses were being interviewed, she added.

Mrs Kelly said she believed people “had clearly seen it happen”, adding: “It was breakfast time. Everybody was up and about. It was pretty bright, so yeah I can imagine if someone had gone in at that time of the day they would have been seen by multiple people.”

Local media reports say the ship was on its way back to the Canary Islands from the Portuguese island of Madeira when the incident happened.

It is believed to have departed Tenerife on 21 November for a seven-day tour around the Canaries and other nearby islands.

The Foreign Office said it has not been approached for consular assistance in this instance.

The Malta-registered Marella Explorer 2 holds up to 1814 passengers across its 14 decks and 907 cabins, according to TUI’s website.