Explainer

Since taking the White House in January last year, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to annex Greenland “very badly,” with a range of options on the table, including a military attack.

Amid opposition from Greenlandic lawmakers, Trump doubled down on Friday, threatening that the United States is “going to do something [there] whether they like it or not”.

“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour,” Trump said at a meeting with oil and gas executives at the White House.

“I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he added.

Since the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last week from Caracas in a military operation, Trump and his officials have upped the ante against the Greenlandic capital, Nuuk.

So, what are the ways that US President Trump could take control of Greenland, a territory of Denmark?

Is Trump considering paying out Greenlanders?

Paying out to Greenland’s nearly 56,000-strong population is an option that White House officials have been reportedly discussing.

Located mostly within the Arctic Circle, Greenland is the world’s largest island, with 80 percent of its land covered by glaciers. Nuuk, the capital, is the most populated area, home to about one-third of the population.

Trump’s officials have discussed sending payments to Greenlanders – ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person – according to a Reuters report, in a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join Washington.

Greenland is formally a part of Denmark, with its own elected government and rules over most of its internal affairs, including control over natural resources and governance. Copenhagen still handles foreign policy, defence and Greenland’s finances.

But since 2009, Greenland has the right to secede if its population votes for independence in a referendum. In theory, payouts to Greenland residents could be an attempt to influence their vote.

Trump shared his ambitions of annexing Greenland during his first term as well, terming it “essentially a large real estate deal.”

If the US government were to pay $100,000 to each Greenland resident, the total bill for this effort would amount to about $5.6bn.

Can the US ‘buy’ Greenland?

Earlier this week, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Trump’s officials are “actively” discussing a potential offer to buy the Danish territory.

During a briefing on Monday with lawmakers from both chambers of Congress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them that Trump would prefer to buy Greenland rather than invade it. Rubio is scheduled to hold talks with Danish leaders next week.

Both Nuuk and Copenhagen have repeatedly insisted that the island “is not for sale”.

There are few modern historical precedents to compare Trump’s threats with Greenland, much like the abduction of Maduro on his orders.

The US purchased Louisiana from France in 1803 for $15m and Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2m. However, both France and Russia were willing sellers — unlike Denmark and Greenland today.

Washington has also purchased territory from Denmark in the past. In 1917, the US, under President Woodrow Wilson, bought the Danish West Indies for $25m during World War I, later renaming them the United States Virgin Islands.

Can Trump really just pay off his way?

While Greenlanders have been open to departing from Denmark, the population has repeatedly refused to be a part of the US. Nearly 85 percent of the population rejects the idea, according to a 2025 poll commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske.

Meanwhile, another poll, by YouGov, shows that only 7 percent of Americans support the idea of a US military invasion of the territory.

Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera, “The White House wants to buy out Greenlanders, not to pay for what Greenland is worth, which is way beyond what the US would ever pay.”

“Trump thinks he can buy Greenland on the cheap, not for what it’s worth to Denmark or Europe,” he said. “This attempt to negotiate directly with the Greenlanders is an affront and threat to Danish and European sovereignty.”

Denmark and the European Union “should make clear that Trump should stop this abuse of European sovereignty,” said Sachs. “Greenland should not be for sale or capture by the US.”

Sachs added that the EU needs to assess “[Greenland’s] enormous value as a geostrategic region in the Arctic, filled with resources, vital for Europe’s military security.” And, he added, “certainly not a plaything of the United States and its new emperor”.

Denmark and the US were among the 12 founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 to provide collective security against Soviet expansion.

“Europe should tell the US imperialists to go away,” Sachs said. “[Today] Europe is far more likely to be invaded from the West (US) than from the East,” the economist told Al Jazeera.

Has the US tried to buy Greenland earlier?

Yes, on more than one occasion.

The first such proposal surfaced in 1867 under Secretary of State William Seward, during discussions to successfully purchase Alaska. By 1868, he was reportedly prepared to offer $5.5m in gold to acquire both Greenland and Iceland.

In 1910, a three-way land swap was discussed that would involve the US acquiring Greenland in exchange for giving Denmark parts of the US-held Philippines, and the return of Northern Schleswig from Germany back to Denmark was proposed.

A more formal attempt was made in 1946, immediately following World War II. Recognising Greenland’s critical role in monitoring Soviet movements, President Harry Truman’s administration offered Denmark $100m in gold for the island.

But Denmark flatly rejected the idea.

Can the US attack Greenland?

While political analysts say that a US attack to annex Greenland would be a direct violation of the NATO treaty, the White House has said that using military force to acquire Greenland is among the options.

Denmark, a NATO ally, has also said that any such attack would end the military alliance.

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark isn’t going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s so strategic.”

Greenland is one of the world’s most sparsely populated, geographically vast regions.

But through a 1951 agreement with Denmark, the US military already has a significant presence on the island.

The US military is stationed at the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, in the northwestern corner of Greenland, and the 1951 pact allows Washington to set up additional “defence areas” on the island.

The Thule base supports missile warning, missile defence, space surveillance missions, and satellite command and control.

Nearly 650 personnel are stationed at the base, including US Air Force and Space Force members, with Canadian, Danish and Greenlandic civilian contractors. Under the 1951 deal, Danish laws and taxation don’t apply to American personnel on the base.

Denmark also has a military presence in Greenland, headquartered in Nuuk, where its main tasks are surveillance and search and rescue operations, and the “assertion of sovereignty and military defense of Greenland and the Faroe Islands”, according to Danish Defence.

But the US forces at Thule are comfortably stronger than the Danish military presence on the island. Many analysts believe that if the US were to use these troops to try to occupy Greenland, they could do so without much military resistance or bloodshed.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place”. Both global powers have a presence in the Arctic Circle; however, there is no evidence of their ships anywhere near Greenland.

Is there another option for the US?

As Trump’s officials mull plans to annex Greenland, there have reportedly been discussions in the White House on entering into a type of agreement that defines a unique structure of sovereignty-sharing.

Reuters reported that officials have discussed putting together a Compact of Free Association, an international agreement between the US and three independent, sovereign Pacific island nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

The political arrangement grants the US responsibility for defence and security in exchange for economic assistance. The precise details of COFA agreements vary depending on the signatory.

For a COFA agreement, in theory, Greenland would need to separate from Denmark.

Asked why the Trump administration had previously said it was not ruling out using military force to acquire Greenland, Leavitt replied that all options were always on the table, but Trump’s “first option always has been diplomacy”.

Why does Trump want Greenland badly?

Trump has cited national security as his motivation for wanting to take Greenland.

For the US, Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

But Greenland is also home to mineral riches, including rare earths. According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland. Scientists believe the island could also have significant oil and gas reserves.

However, Greenland does not carry out the extraction of oil and gas, and its mining sector is opposed by its Indigenous population. The island’s economy is largely reliant on its fishing industry at the moment.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Less than a week into the new year, after a meeting between Pakistan’s Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu and his Bangladeshi counterpart Air Chief Marshal Hasan Mahmood Khan, the Pakistani military announced that a deal to sell its domestically produced JF-17 Thunder fighter jet could be imminent.

A statement by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, said Khan praised the Pakistan Air Force’s combat record and sought assistance to support the Bangladesh Air Force’s “ageing fleet and integration of air defence radar systems to enhance air surveillance”.

Alongside a promise of fast-tracked delivery of Super Mushshak trainer aircraft, the statement, issued on January 6, added that “detailed discussions were also held on potential procurement of JF-17 Thunder aircraft.”

The Super Mushshak is a light-weight, two-to-three seater, single-engine plane with fixed, non-retractable, tricycle landing gear. The plane is primarily used for training purposes. Besides Pakistan, more than 10 countries currently have deployed the plane in their fleet for pilot training, including Azerbaijan, Turkiye, Iran, Iraq and others.

Just a day later, it was reported by the Reuters news agency that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were in talks to convert about $2bn of Saudi loans into a JF-17 fighter jet deal, further strengthening military cooperation between the two longtime allies. The discussions come only months after they signed a mutual defence pact in September last year.

Both developments followed reports in late December that Pakistan had reached a $4bn deal with a rebel faction in Libya, the self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA), including the sale of more than a dozen JF-17 Thunder jets.

While the Pakistani military has yet to formally confirm any agreement with Libya or Saudi Arabia, and Bangladesh has so far only expressed “interest” rather than signing a contract, analysts say events in 2025 have boosted the JF-17’s appeal.

However, the relatively cheap price of the plane, estimated at $25m-$30m, has meant that several countries in the last 10 years have shown interest in it, with Nigeria, Myanmar and Azerbaijan already having the jet in their fleets. And recent events have bolstered the reputation of Pakistan’s air fighting capabilities, say analysts.

In May, India and Pakistan fought an intense four-day air war, firing missiles and drones at each other’s territories, parts of Kashmir that they administer, and at military bases, after gunmen shot down 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan, which denied any link to the attack.

Pakistan said it shot down several Indian fighter jets during the aerial combat, a claim Indian officials later acknowledged after initially denying any losses, but without specifying the number of jets downed.

“The PAF demonstrated superior performance against much more expensive Western and Russian systems, which has made these aircraft an attractive option for several air forces,” Adil Sultan, a former Pakistan Air Force air commodore, said.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has traditionally relied on Russian Mirage-2000 and Su-30 jets, but in the 2025 fighting also used French Rafale jets.

Pakistan, for its part, relied on its recently imported Chinese J-10C Vigorous Dragon and the JF-17 Thunder as well as the United States’ F-16 Fighting Falcon jets, with 42 planes in the formation that took on 72 IAF planes, according to the PAF.

So what is the JF-17 Thunder, what can it do, and why are so many countries showing interest?

What is the JF-17 Thunder?

The JF-17 Thunder is a lightweight, all-weather, multi-role fighter aircraft jointly manufactured by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and China’s Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).

Pakistan and China signed an agreement in the late 1990s to develop the aircraft, with work beginning in the early 2000s at the PAC in Kamra, situated in Pakistan’s Punjab province, just more than 80km (50 miles) away from the capital, Islamabad.

A retired Pakistan Air Force air commodore who worked closely on the programme said production is split between the two countries, with 58 percent carried out in Pakistan and 42 percent in China.

“We are manufacturing the front fuselage and vertical tail, whereas China makes the middle and rear fuselage of the plane, with a Russian engine being used, as well as British manufacturer Martin Baker’s seats are installed. However, the complete assembly of the plane is carried out in Pakistan,” he told Al Jazeera, speaking on condition of anonymity due to his involvement in the project.

He said the aircraft was first unveiled to the public in March 2007, with the induction of the first variant, Block 1, in 2009. The most advanced Block 3 variant entered service in 2020.

“The idea was to replace Pakistan’s ageing fleet, and subsequently, in the next decade or so, they made the bulk of our air force, with more than 150 combat jets part of the force,” he said.

Before the JF-17, Pakistan was primarily relying on French manufacturer Dassault’s Mirage III and Mirage 5, as well as Chinese J-7 fighter planes.

The Block 3 variant places JF-17 in the so-called 4.5 generation of fighter jets. It has air-to-air and air-to-surface combat capabilities, advanced avionics, an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, electronic warfare systems and the ability to fire beyond-visual-range missiles.

Their avionics and electronic capabilities are an upgrade from the fourth generation of fighter planes, such as the F-16 and Su-27, which were primarily built for speed and dogfighting.

The AESA radar gives these planes the capability to track multiple targets at once and provides more visibility at longer distances. However, unlike fifth-generation planes, they lack stealth capabilities.

The Pakistan Air Force says the jet offers high manoeuvrability at medium and low altitudes and combines firepower, agility and survivability, making it “a potent platform for any air force”.

Who has bought the JF-17?

Myanmar was the first country to buy the JF-17, ordering at least 16 Block 2 aircraft in 2015. Seven have been delivered so far.

Nigeria became the second buyer, inducting three JF-17s into its air force in 2021.

Azerbaijan followed with an initial order of 16 jets in February 2024, worth more than $1.5bn. In November 2025, Azerbaijan unveiled five JF-17s during its Victory Day parade, formally making it the third foreign operator of the aircraft.

That same month, the Pakistani military announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with a “friendly country” for procurement of the JF-17, describing it as a “noteworthy development” without naming the buyer.

Other countries, including Iraq, Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia, have also explored the option of buying the JF-17 over the past decade, though those plans did not materialise.

While JF-17 makes the bulk of the PAF’s fighting squadron, the plane is not used by the Chinese air force, which is more reliant on its J-10, J-20 and J-35 fighter planes.

With the plane’s entire assembly carried out in Kamra, Pakistan is the primary seller of the JF-17 fighter plane, including its after-sales services.

How does the JF-17 compare to other fighter jets?

The most advanced fighters currently in service globally are fifth-generation jets such as the US F-22 and F-35, China’s J-20 and J-35, and Russia’s Su-57. These aircraft feature stealth technology – unlike all previous generations of jets.

The JF-17’s Block 3 variant, by contrast, belongs to the 4.5 generation, alongside jets such as Sweden’s Gripen, France’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, India’s Tejas and China’s J-10, among others.

Still, while they don’t have stealth capabilities, 4.5 generation planes have specialised coating on them to reduce their radar signature, making them harder – though not impossible – to detect.

So, for instance, when a 4.5-generation jet enters the enemy’s radar zone, it can get detected, but it can also try to jam signals by using its electronic jamming capabilities, or use long-range missiles to attack the target, before turning back.

On the other hand, a fifth-generation plane remains entirely undetected by radars due to its physical design and weapons, which are stored internally.

While official pricing has not been disclosed, estimates put the JF-17’s unit cost at between $25m and $30m. By comparison, the Rafale costs more than $90m per aircraft, while the Gripen is priced at more than $100m.

An Islamabad-based regional security analyst who has closely monitored the development of the JF-17 planes said the jet’s appeal lies in its cost-effectiveness, lower maintenance requirements and combat record.

“The JF-17’s appeal is less about headline performance than the overall package, which includes lower price, flexible weapons integration, training, spares and generally fewer Western political strings,” he told Al Jazeera, requesting anonymity because of his involvement with the JF-17 project.

“In that sense, the JF-17 is a ‘good enough’ multirole jet optimised for accessibility. It can suit air forces modernising on tight budgets, but it is not a direct substitute for higher-end fighters like the J-10C or F-16V in range, payload, electronic warfare maturity and long-term upgrade headroom.”

Sultan, who is also dean of the Faculty of Aerospace and Strategic Studies at Islamabad’s Air University, said the JF-17’s performance against Indian aircraft in 2025 underscored its capabilities.

However, he cautioned that outcomes in air combat depend not only on the aircraft but on who is operating it.

“The jets’ integration with other systems such as ground and airborne radars, communication systems and the human skills mastered during training play the most vital role,” he said.

Why is the interest in JF-17s growing?

Pakistan’s air force again drew attention during the four-day conflict with India in May 2025, particularly on the night of May 7, when Indian aircraft struck targets inside Pakistani territory.

According to the PAF, Pakistani squadrons flying Chinese-made J-10C jets shot down at least six Indian aircraft. Indian officials initially denied losses but later acknowledged that “some” planes had been lost.

US President Donald Trump, who has claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between the two countries, has repeatedly highlighted the performance of Pakistani jets, a claim India has strongly rejected.

Although the JF-17 was not involved in the reported shoot-downs, the PAF says it was part of the formations that engaged Indian aircraft.

Three days later, on May 10, the ISPR claimed a JF-17 was used to strike India’s Russian-made S-400 air defence system with a hypersonic missile. India has denied any damage to its defence system.

The Islamabad-based security analyst said Pakistan is using the May conflict to market the JF-17 as a combat-proven, affordable option for countries with limited defence budgets.

He added, however, that the possibility of a “potential procurement” should be treated cautiously.

“‘Expressions of interest’ should be treated cautiously as fighter jet procurements typically take years to translate from exploratory talks to signed contracts and deliveries,” he said, adding that “while PAF is continuing to market the JF-17 aggressively, the JF-17 for debt swap isn’t what PAF envisions.”

Other observers agree that Islamabad sees an opportunity to leverage its air force’s performance to secure defence exports and project itself as a rising middle power.

The retired air commodore involved in the JF-17 programme said combat performance remains the ultimate benchmark.

“Very few countries are making fighter jets, with most of the market dominated by Western developers who often attach many conditions to sales,” he said. “But everybody wants to diversify and avoid putting all their eggs in one basket, and that is where Pakistan comes in.”

On Bangladesh, he said Dhaka’s posture towards Pakistan has shifted sharply since a change of government in 2024.

“Such deals are not just about sale of a platform or a plane. It is a collaboration, an agreement at national level, showing strategic alignment between two countries,” he said.

Fighter jets, he added, are a long-term commitment, with service lives of three to four decades.

“If Bangladesh is getting a JF-17 or Super Mushshak trainers, you can be certain that they are in it for the long haul with training and after-sales services. They are also showing interest in Chinese J-10s, which means that strategically, they have decided who they want to align with in the future,” he said.

US President Donald Trump sees Greenland as a United States national security priority to deter Washington’s “adversaries in the Arctic region”, according to a White House statement released on Tuesday.

The statement came days after Trump told reporters that the US needs Greenland from a national security perspective because it is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships”.

Here’s what you need to know about what Trump said, whether Russia and China are present in Greenland, and whether they do pose a threat to American security.

What has Trump recently said about Greenland?

“Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on January 4.

The White House statement on Tuesday fleshed out further details on how the US would go about its acquisition of Greenland.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal,” the White House statement says.

Over the course of his second term, Trump has talked about wanting Greenland for national security reasons multiple times.

“We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it,” he said in March.

Since 1979, Greenland has been a self-governing territory of Denmark, and since 2009, it has had the right to declare independence through a referendum.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to take control of the island, which hosts a US military base. He first voiced this desire in 2019, during his first term as US president.

As a response, leaders from Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly said that Greenland is not for sale. They have made it clear that they are especially not interested in becoming part of the US.

On January 4, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland.”

“The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom,” she said, alluding to the Faroe Islands, which, like Greenland, are also a Danish territory.

“I would therefore strongly urge the US to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have very clearly said that they are not for sale,” Frederiksen said.

US special forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during an operation in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, on January 3.

Hours later, Katie Miller, the wife of close Trump aide and US Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, posted a photo on X showing the US flag imposed on the map of Greenland.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen hit back in an X post, writing, “Relations between nations and peoples are built on mutual respect and international law – not on symbolic gestures that disregard our status and our rights.”

Why does Trump want Greenland so badly?

The location and natural resources of the Arctic island make it strategically important for Washington.

Greenland is geographically part of North America, located between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean. It is home to some 56,000 residents, mostly Indigenous Inuit people.

It is the world’s largest island. Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, is closer to New York City  – some 2,900km (1,800 miles) away – than the Danish capital Copenhagen, which is located 3,500km (2,174 miles) to the east.

Greenland, a NATO territory through Denmark, is an EU-associated overseas country and territory whose residents remain European Union citizens, having joined the European Community with Denmark in 1973 but having withdrawn in 1985.

“It’s really tricky if the United States decides to use military power to take over Greenland. Denmark is a member of NATO; the United States is a member as well. It really calls into question what the purpose of the military alliance is, if that happens,” Melinda Haring, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center, told Al Jazeera.

Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. This gives the US a strategic upper hand for its military and its ballistic missile early-warning system.

The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

The island is also incredibly rich in minerals, including rare earth minerals used in the high-tech industry and in the manufacture of batteries.

According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland.

Greenland does not carry out the extraction of oil and gas, and its mining sector is opposed by its Indigenous population. The island’s economy is largely reliant on its fishing industry.

Are Chinese and Russian ships swarming Greenland?

However, while Trump has spoken of Russian and Chinese ships around Greenland, currently, facts don’t bear that out.

Vessel tracking data from maritime data and intelligence websites such as MarineTraffic do not show the presence of Chinese or Russian ships near Greenland.

Are Russia and China a threat to Greenland?

The ships’ location aside, Trump’s rhetoric comes amid a heightened scramble for the Arctic.

Amid global warming, the vast untapped resources of the Arctic are becoming more accessible. Countries like the US, Canada, China and Russia are now eyeing these resources.

“Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic, but we will closely follow the developments and mount an appropriate response by increasing our military capability and modernising military infrastructure,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an address in March 2025 at the International Arctic Forum in the Russian city of Murmansk, the largest city within the Arctic Circle.

During this address, Putin said that he believed Trump was serious about taking Greenland and that the US will continue with efforts to acquire it.

In December 2024, Canada released a policy document detailing plans to ramp up its military and diplomatic presence in the Arctic. Russia is also constructing military installations and power plants in the region.

Meanwhile, Russia and China have been working together to develop Arctic shipping routes as Moscow seeks to deliver more oil and gas to China amid Western sanctions while Beijing seeks an alternative shipping route to reduce its dependence on the Strait of Malacca.

The Northern Sea Route (NSR), a maritime route in the Arctic Ocean, is becoming easier to navigate due to melting ice. The NSR can cut shipping trips significantly short. Russia is hoping to ramp up commerce through the NSR to trade more with Asia than Europe due to Western sanctions. Last year, the number of oil shipments from Russia to China via the NSR rose by a quarter.

China is also probing the region, and has sent 10 scientific expeditions to the Arctic and built research vessels to survey the icy waters north of Russia.

Syria and Israel have agreed to set up a joint mechanism after US-mediated talks in Paris on Tuesday, in what they are calling a “dedicated communication cell” aimed at sharing intelligence and coordinating military de-escalation.

The two countries have had a US-backed security agreement in place since 1974. However, when the Assad regime fell on December 8, 2024, Israel began attacking Syrian military infrastructure and pushed their troops into the demilitarised zone that is Syrian territory.

Syria and Israel have been engaging in intermittent negotiations over the last year to find a security agreement that would stop Israel’s repeat aggression against Syrians and Syrian territory.

Here’s everything you need to know about these talks.

What is the mechanism?

“The mechanism will serve as a platform to address any disputes promptly and work to prevent misunderstandings,” a joint statement released by the two countries said after the agreement on Tuesday.

The idea is to have a body that will deal with grievances and resolve disputes between Israel and Syria, ideally in a way that brings Israeli attacks on Syrian land and people to an end. Both sides may also hope it can pave the way to a renewed security agreement.

What does Syria want?

A government source told state media SANA, that the focus for Syria is to reactivate “the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, with the aim of ensuring the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the lines in place prior to Dec. 8, 2024 within a reciprocal security agreement that prioritizes full Syrian sovereignty and guarantees the prevention of any form of interference in Syria’s internal affairs.”

The Syrian government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, will want Israel to respect Syrian sovereignty by pulling back its forces and stopping attacks but also to stop meddling in domestic affairs.

The Washington Post reported that Israel has supported figures opposed to Syria’s new government, including Suwayda’s Hikmat al Hijri. Israel has previously said they want to protect Syria’s minority Druze community.

What does Israel want?

Three things mainly, according to Al Jazeera’s senior correspondent Resul Serdar.

“For Israel, it’s about more land, patronage of minorities, and long term leverage,” he said.

Israel has tried to paint the new government in Syria as extremist and a threat to its security. It has called for the area south of Damascus to be demilitarised, while also trying to build relations with Syrian minorities, particularly the Druze in Suwayda.

Analysts believe this could be part of a strategy by Israel to keep its neighbours weak.

Israel has come to the table at least partially due to US leverage and influence. US President Donald Trump and his Special Envoy Tom Barrack have both built warm relations with al-Sharaa.

But Israel may also want to counter Turkish influence in Syria. Israel has previously accused Turkiye of turning Syria into its protectorate.

What does the US want?

“For Washington the priority is containment,” Serdar said.

The US also sees Damascus as a crucial partner in the fight against ISIL. Stability in Syria, particularly under a central government in Damascus, could mean pulling US troops out of eastern Syria.

But the US also wants a strong Syria to avoid the return of Iranian influence in the country and to avoid any wider regional violence.

For his part, Trump is eager to expand the Abraham Accords that sees Arab and Muslim countries sign normalisation agreements with Israel and has said he hopes Syria will do so. Syria, however, has said they do not intend to sign the Abraham Accords.

Will the mechanism work?

There are doubts.

A Syrian official told Reuters news agency that his country isn’t willing to move forward on “strategic files” without an enforced timeline over Israel’s withdrawal from Syrian territory taken after December 2024.

In addition to moving into Syrian territory, Israel has conducted numerous attacks on Damascus, including on the Syrian Ministry of Defense building.

A similar mechanism between Israel and Lebanon was created after the November 2024 ceasefire there, with France and the United States involved to enforce the deal. However, the mechanism has not stopped near-daily attacks by Israel on Lebanese territory, nor has it led to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from five occupied points in Lebanon.

For the mechanism to work, the United States will have to do something it has rarely done in recent years: hold Israel accountable.

What about the Golan Heights?

Israel has illegally occupied areas of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967.

Israeli officials have indicated they are not willing to return the Golan Heights to the new Syrian government.

After the fall of the Assad regime, Israel expanded into Syrian territory and seized the strategic outlook of Jabal al-Sheikh, a mountain that lies between Syria, Lebanon and Israel.

For now, Syria appears to be focused on getting Israel out of the areas it occupied since December 2024.

Over the weekend, the United States carried out a large-scale military strike against Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a major escalation that sent shockwaves across Latin America.

On Monday morning, US President Donald Trump doubled down, threatening action against the governments of Colombia, Cuba and Mexico unless they “get their act together”, claiming he is countering drug trafficking and securing US interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The remarks revive deep tensions over US interference in Latin America. Many of the governments targeted by Trump have little appetite for Washington’s involvement, but their armed forces lack the capacity to keep the US at arm’s length.

Latin America’s military capabilities

The US has the strongest military in the world and spends more on its military than the total budgets of the next 10 largest military spenders combined. In 2025, the US defence budget was $895bn, roughly 3.1 percent of its gross domestic product.

According to the 2025 Global Firepower rankings, Brazil has the most powerful military in Latin America and is ranked 11th globally.

Mexico ranks 32nd globally, Colombia 46th, Venezuela 50th and Cuba 67th. All of these countries are significantly below the US military in all metrics, including the number of active personnel, military aircraft, combat tanks, naval assets and their military budgets.

In a standard war involving tanks, planes and naval power, the US maintains overwhelming superiority.

The only notable metric that these countries have over the US is their paramilitary forces, which operate alongside the regular armed forces, often using asymmetrical warfare and unconventional tactics against conventional military strategies.

Paramilitaries across Latin America

Several Latin American countries have long histories of paramilitary and irregular armed groups that have often played a role in the internal security of these countries. These groups are typically armed, organised and politically influential but operate outside the regular military chain of command.

Cuba has the world’s third largest paramilitary force, made up of more than 1.14 million members, as reported by Global Firepower. These groups include state-controlled militias and neighbourhood defence committees. The largest of these, the Territorial Troops Militia, serves as a civilian reserve aimed at assisting the regular army against external threats or during internal crises.

In Venezuela, members of pro-government armed civilian groups known as “colectivos” have been accused of enforcing political control and intimidating opponents. Although not formally part of the armed forces, they are widely seen as operating with state tolerance or support, particularly during periods of unrest under Maduro.

In Colombia, right-wing paramilitary groups emerged in the 1980s to fight left-wing rebels. Although officially demobilised in the mid-2000s, many later re-emerged as criminal or neo-paramilitary organisations, remaining active in rural areas. The earliest groups were organised with the involvement of the Colombian military following guidance from US counterinsurgency advisers during the Cold War.

In Mexico, heavily armed drug cartels function as de facto paramilitary forces. Groups such as the Zetas, originally formed by former soldiers, possess military-grade weapons and exercise territorial control, often outgunning local police and challenging the state’s authority. The Mexican military has increasingly been deployed in law enforcement roles in response.

History of US interference in Latin America

Over the past two centuries, the US has repeatedly interfered in Latin America.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the so-called Banana Wars saw US forces deployed across Central America to protect corporate interests.

In 1934, President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the “Good Neighbor Policy”, pledging nonintervention.

Yet during the Cold War, the US financed operations to overthrow elected governments, often coordinated by the CIA, founded in 1947.

Panama is the only Latin American country the US has formally invaded, which occurred in 1989 under President George HW Bush. “Operation Just Cause” ostensibly was aimed at removing President Manuel Noriega, who was later convicted of drug trafficking and other offences.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is to appear in a New York court on Monday, two days after he was abducted by US special forces in a military operation in Caracas.

The US military arrested Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Saturday and brought them to New York, where they face multiple federal charges, including drugs and weapons charges.

Here is more about Maduro’s scheduled court appearance:

When and where will it take place?

Maduro is to appear before a federal judge at noon (17:00 GMT).

The appearance is scheduled to happen in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in the Southern District of New York. Maduro is to appear before US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

A court spokesperson told NBC News that Flores, who is also listed as a defendant in a US indictment unsealed on Saturday, will appear in court on Monday as well.

What are the charges?

According to the indictment, the US accuses Maduro of being at the forefront of corruption to “use his illegally obtained authority” to “transport thousands of tons of cocaine” to the US with his coconspirators.

Additionally, the indictment alleges that Maduro has “tarnished” every public office he has held. It adds that Maduro “allows cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish for his own benefit, for the benefit of members of his ruling regime, and for the benefit of his family members”.

Maduro faces four counts:

• Count 1, narcoterrorism conspiracy: US prosecutors say Maduro and his coconspirators knowingly provided something of financial value to US-designated “foreign terrorist organizations” and their members. The indictment lists these organisations as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a leftist rebel group that signed a peace deal in 2016 but has dissidents who refused to lay down their arms and are still involved in the drug trade; Segunda Marquetalia, the largest dissident FARC group; National Liberation Army, another leftist Colombian rebel group; Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel; Los Zetas/Cartel del Noreste, another Mexican drug cartel; and Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.
• Count 2, cocaine importation conspiracy: It accuses Maduro and his codefendants of conspiring to manufacture, distribute and import cocaine into the US.
• Count 3, possession of machineguns and destructive devices: The indictment accuses the defendants of possessing, carrying and using machineguns in relation to the above drug‑trafficking counts.
• Count 4, conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices: It further accuses the defendants of conspiring to use, carry and possess those weapons in furtherance of drug trafficking.

The indictment also says Maduro and his codefendants should forfeit to the US government any proceeds and assets obtained from the alleged crimes.

Is there evidence for these charges?

There is little evidence that drugs are trafficked from Venezuela on a large scale. The 2023 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime World Drug Report said global cocaine production hit a record of 3,708 tonnes, up nearly one‑third from 2022, with most coca cultivation taking place in Colombia, followed by Peru and Bolivia.

Trafficking routes into the US in 2023-2024 primarily passed through Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, not Venezuela, although it does serve as a minor transit corridor for Colombian cocaine moving into the eastern Caribbean.

Who is named in the indictment?

Maduro

Maduro, 63, who became Venezuela’s president in 2013, was declared the winner of 2024’s election. His re-election was rejected as fraudulent by the US and independent observers, such as the Carter Center. A UN expert panel said the 2024 vote failed to meet international standards.

Nine Latin American countries called for a review of the results with independent oversight.

Maduro defended the election results and accused his opponents of undermining the country’s sovereignty.

Since returning to the White House nearly a year ago, US President Donald Trump has expanded sanctions and punitive measures against Maduro and senior officials in his government.

The Trump administration ramped up military pressure starting in August when it deployed warships and thousand of its service members in the Caribbean near Venezuela. It has since carried out dozens of air strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats, killing more than 100 people.

Maduro has pushed back by mobilising Venezuelan military personnel.

During this time, the Caracas-based news network Globovision quoted Maduro as saying: “From the north, the empire has gone mad and, like a rotten rehash, has renewed its threats to the peace and stability of Venezuela.”

But a day before Saturday’s US attack on the country, Maduro had offered to hold talks to combat drug trafficking.

Flores

Flores, 69, has been married to Maduro since 2013.

Known as the “first combatant” rather than first lady, Flores is a veteran lawyer and politician who rose to prominence by defending future President Hugo Chavez after his failed 1992 coup. She helped secure his release and later became a key Chavismo figure and the first woman to preside over Venezuela’s National Assembly. Chavismo, which promotes socialism and anti-imperialist politics, is the political movement started by Chavez, Maduro’s mentor.

The indictment accuses Flores of joining Maduro’s cocaine importation conspiracy.

Other defendants

The indictment names four other people as Maduro’s coconspirators, namely Diosdado Cabello, Venezuela’s interior minister; Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, former Venezuelan interior minister; Nicolas Maduro Guerra, Maduro’s son and a Venezuelan politician; and Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, the leader of Tren de Aragua, which was designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the US in February. But most experts do not define Tren de Aragua as a “terrorist organisation”.

It is not clear yet who will represent Maduro, Flores and the other defendants.

Who is the judge?

Hellerstein was born in 1933 in New York. He was appointed to the federal bench in 1998 by former President Bill Clinton.

He is likely on Monday to advise Maduro and Flores about their rights and ask them if they want to enter a plea.

What’s at stake?

Maduro’s freedom is primarily at stake. If convicted, he could face 30 years to life in prison.

“This is less about Maduro as it is about access to Venezuela’s oil deposits,” Ilias Bantekas, a professor of transnational law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera. “This is the number one target. Trump is not content with just allowing US oil firms to get concessions but to ‘run’ the country, which entails absolute and indefinite control over Venezuela’s resources.”

Venezuela’s oil reserves are concentrated primarily in the Orinoco Belt, a region in the eastern part of the country stretching across roughly 55,000sq km (21,235sq miles).

While the country is home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves – at an estimated 303 billion barrels as of 2023 – it earns only a fraction of the revenue it once did from exporting crude due to mismanagement and US sanctions.

Last month, Trump accused Venezuela in a post on his Truth Social platform of “stealing” US oil, land and other assets and using that oil to fund crime, “terrorism” and human trafficking.

Trump repeated his false claims after Maduro’s arrest. During a news conference on Saturday, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” could be carried out.

“Given the opposition of all South American states, save for Argentina, to US dominance in the region, Trump’s plan requires a vast military deployment. We need to see how countries like Brazil and Colombia react to this, including also BRICS,” said Bantekas from Hamad Bin Khalifa University.

In a joint statement released on Sunday, the governments of Spain, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay said the US actions in Venezuela “constitute an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and regional security and endanger the civilian population”.

Was Maduro’s abduction legal?

This case is unusual because there are questions about how Maduro was captured and whether it was legal. Russia, China and other Venezuelan allies have accused the US of violating international law.

“If there was an armed conflict between Venezuela and the USA and, given that Maduro is the head of his country’s armed forces, then he would be a legitimate target,” Bantekas said.

“However, under the circumstances there is no armed conflict between the two countries and in the absence of an armed attack by Venezuela against the US, the latter’s invasion in Venezuela violates article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as does the abduction of the country’s President. It is a blatant act of aggression.”

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter bars UN members from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

A United Nations Security Council meeting on Monday will determine the legality of the US abduction of Maduro.

“Given that Maduro is already in US custody and in the USA, it is in the interests of all parties that he appear before a court. At the very least, Maduro can challenge the legality of his arrest and the jurisdiction of the court,” Bantekas said.

“The court itself has an obligation to decide if it has jurisdiction and as a preliminary issue decide whether Maduro enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. If these issues are dispensed the court nonetheless finds that it has jurisdiction and that Maduro does not enjoy immunity, then the prosecutor must prove its case.”

What’s next?

The Trump administration has not explicitly stated a clear plan for Venezuela, with analysts saying the administration has sent out confusing signals.

In an interview with the NBC news channels on Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Washington will not govern Venezuela on a day-to-day basis besides enforcing an existing “oil quarantine”.

Rubio told ABC news on Sunday that the US had leverage over Venezuela and the US would “set the conditions” to ensure that Venezuela is no longer a “narco-trafficking paradise”.

But on Sunday, Trump told reporters that the US is ready to carry out a second military strike on Venezuela if its government refuses to cooperate with his plan to ‘resolve’ the situation there.

She could “pay a very big price” if she “does not do what’s right”, Trump said, refering Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

During his Saturday conference, Trump said that Rodriguez told Rubio that she will do what the US needs her to. “She really doesn’t have a choice,” Trump had said.

In his first press conference after Maduro’s illegal abduction on Saturday, Trump ruled out the possibility of working with opposition leader and Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who was barred from running in the 2024 presidential elections.

Machado, a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly, is seen as the most credible adversary of Maduro’s leftist government.

On Monday, Rodriguez, the interim leader, offered to cooperate with Trump. In a statement posted on social media, she invited Trump to “collaborate” and sought “respectful relations”.

“President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war,” she wrote.

Her conciliatory tone came a day after she appeared on state TV declaring that Maduro was still Venezuela’s sole legitimate president.

Protests about the soaring cost of living in Iran have entered their sixth day after the rial plunged to a record low against the United States dollar in late December.

After a number of deaths as a result of clashes between protesters and security services, the government of President Masoud Pezeshkian appealed for unity and blamed economic pressure on what he said are Tehran’s “enemies”. Despite government promises to enact economic reforms and put more effort into tackling corruption, the protests have continued.

So far, at least seven people have been killed and 44 people have been arrested since shopkeepers in Tehran first shuttered their businesses on Sunday to protest against Iran’s economic crisis.

The tide of protest has continued to rise with economic demonstrations morphing into political protests as unrest has spread across the country.

How significant is the current round of protests, how real are the protesters’ grievances and where might this end? Here are five things you should know:

Worries about the cost of living are very real

Iran is one of the most sanctioned countries in the world. A range of international restrictions means that Tehran is struggling to access international financial markets and frozen foreign assets. The country’s increasing reliance on imports is exacerbating the situation and fuelling inflation.

On Sunday, the Iranian rial dropped to 1.42 million against the US dollar – a 56 percent drop in value in just six months. The plummeting currency has driven inflation with food prices soaring by an average of 72 percent compared with last year.

“If only the government, instead of just focusing on fuel, could bring down the price of other goods,” taxi driver Majid Ebrahimi told Al Jazeera. “The prices of dairy products have gone up six times this year and other goods more than 10 times.”

These protests are large

What began as a single protest about the collapse of the Iranian economy by shopkeepers in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar on Sunday had spread to 17 of Iran’s 31 provinces by New Year’s Eve with students and demonstrators from across Iranian society joining the wave of demonstrations.

Thousands of people have mobilised across the country with security forces responding forcefully in some places.

On Thursday, Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency reported that three people had died in confrontations between security forces and protesters in Lordegan in southwestern Iran. A further three deaths were reported in Azna and another in Kouhdasht, both in central Iran.

“Some protesters began throwing stones at the city’s administrative buildings, including the provincial governor’s office, the mosque, the Martyrs Foundation, the town hall and banks,” Fars reported of protests in Lordegan, adding that police had responded with tear gas.

It’s hard to know how the government will respond

Tehran’s previous hardline responses to public unrest have been marked by the deaths of protesters. However, so far, despite a number of isolated clashes between protesters and security forces, Pezeshkian’s government has held back from an outright crackdown and appears ready to listen to the “legitimate demands” of protesters.

In an effort to address protesters’ concerns, the government appointed a new governor of the central bank on Wednesday. Abdolnaser Hemmati has pledged to restore economic stability after the rial’s dramatic collapse.

On Tuesday, the Ministry of Higher Education removed campus security managers from the University of Tehran and two other major universities. Local media reported that their removal was due to “a record of misconduct and failure to properly handle recent student protests”.

Speaking at a ceremony in Tehran on Thursday to mark the assassination of senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani in a US drone attack five years ago, Pezeshkian also took the opportunity to emphasise his government’s commitment to economic reforms and addressing corruption.

“We are determined to eradicate all forms of rent-seeking, smuggling and bribery,” he told attendees. “Those who benefit from these rents will resist and try to create obstacles, but we will continue on this path.”

“We must all stand together to solve the people’s problems and defend the rights of the oppressed and the underprivileged,” he added.

Protecting people’s livelihoods is a “red line” for his government, he declared.

Mass protests have happened before

Mass protests erupted across Iran in 2022 after the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who was arrested in September that year for not wearing her hijab correctly.

Demonstrations first broke out after Amini’s funeral in the western city of Saqqez when women ripped off their headscarves in solidarity with the dead woman before they spread across much of the country.

Iran’s brutal response to the unrest involved the arbitrary arrest of tens of thousands of people, the extensive use of tear gas, the firing of live ammunition and, according to human rights organisations, the unlawful deaths of hundreds of people.

A 2024 investigation by United Nations experts into the government’s response found that its actions amounted to “crimes against humanity”, a claim rejected by authorities in Tehran as “false” and “biased”.

The so-called morality police were briefly suspended in December 2022 after the protests before being reinstated the following year. However, their enforcement of dress codes has since become notably more relaxed although many women still fear a resurgence.

These protests could escalate

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump – who in 2018 unilaterally withdrew the US from a nuclear deal with Iran that limited Iran’s nuclear development in return for sanctions relief – commented on the unrest. He posted on his Truth Social platform: “If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

On Thursday, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on its Farsi social media account pre-revolutionary Iranian images of a lion and a sun with the lion’s paw resting on an hourglass featuring the country’s current flag. The post read: “The rise of Iranian lions and lionesses to fight against darkness”, continuing: “Light triumphs over darkness.”

In June, Israel and the US launched attacks on Iran during a 12-day war between Iran and Israel.

While that conflict ended with what the US claimed was a decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, speculation that Israel has been readying itself for further strikes has continued.

This week, the US news website Axios reported that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed further strikes on Iran as well as potentially targeting Tehran’s Lebanese ally Hezbollah.

Responding on social media, Pezeshkian wrote: “Answer of Islamic Republic of Iran to any cruel aggression will be harsh and discouraging.”

Four members of the Palestine Action group, which has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, are continuing with their hunger strikes in different prisons around the country.

Four other Palestine Action members have ended their hunger strikes – some after being hospitalised.

Here is what we know about the four remaining hunger strikers.

Why are the Palestine Action protesters on hunger strike?

Imprisoned Palestine Action members have been on hunger strikes in prisons around the UK for more than 50 days.

The Palestine Action members are being held on remand in prisons over their alleged involvement in break-ins at the UK subsidiary of Elbit Systems in Filton near Bristol, where equipment was reportedly damaged, and at a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire, where two military aircraft were sprayed with red paint.

The prisoners deny the charges against them, which include burglary and violent disorder.

Of the four still on hunger strikes, three were imprisoned in November 2024 for their alleged involvement in break-ins at the UK subsidiary of Israeli weapons group Elbit Systems in Filton near Bristol, where equipment was reportedly damaged. One has been in prison since July 2025 for alleged involvement in damage at a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire, where two military aircraft were sprayed with red paint.

Palestine Action, a protest group launched in July 2020, describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

The UK parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group on July 2, 2025, classifying it as a “terrorist” organisation and bringing it into the same category as armed groups like al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS). Critics decried the move, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed acts of violence that amount to terrorism.

More than 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. The ban has been challenged in court.

The hunger strikers have five key demands: immediate bail, the right to a fair trial – which they say includes the release of documents related to “the ongoing witch-hunt of activists and campaigners” – ending censorship of their communications, “de-proscribing” Palestine Action and shutting down Elbit Systems, which operates several UK factories.

“The UK government has forced their bodies to a breaking point,” pro-Palestine activist Audrey Corno told Al Jazeera Mubasher.

“A promise to the government is that the prisoners’ resistance and the people’s resistance against the genocide [in Gaza], Israel’s occupation and apartheid of genocide will not stop until it ends.”

Who are the remaining hunger strikers?

Heba Muraisi, Kamran Ahmed, Teuta Hoxha and Lewie Chiaramello are the four people, aged between 20 and 31, who are continuing their hunger strikes.

Heba Muraisi

Muraisi, 31, was on day 60 of her hunger strike on Thursday. She is being held in HMP [His Majesty’s Prison] New Hall in Wakefield, a prison in West Yorkshire about 180 miles (290km) north of London.

Muraisi was arrested in November 2024 for her alleged role in an August 2024 raid on the Israel-based Elbit Systems in Bristol, which is believed to have cost the Israeli weapons manufacturer more than $1.34m.

According to social media posts, Muraisi is of Yemeni origin. However, Al Jazeera could not independently verify this.

She was transferred to the West Yorkshire prison in October 2025 from HMP Bronzefield in Surrey, about 18 miles from the UK capital.

“Heba is demanding to be transferred back to HMP Bronzefield. She was transferred very suddenly, very far away from her entire support network and family, which is based in London. She’s been experiencing consistent medical negligence. Her body is, as you’d imagine, increasingly weak,” Corno said.

In a statement shared with Al Jazeera on December 29, Muraisi said: “I’ve been force-fed repression and I’m stuffed with rage and that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing now. I am bringing acute awareness to the unjust application of UK laws by our Government and I’m glad that people can now see this after a year of imprisonment and human rights violations. Keep going, keep fighting.”

Muraisi’s trial is set for June 2026, according to the protest group Prisoners For Palestine.

Kamran Ahmed

Ahmed, 28, was also arrested in November 2024 and is being held in HMP Pentonville in north London. He was also arrested for his alleged involvement in the raid on Elbit Systems in Bristol. Ahmed has been on a hunger strike for more than 50 days.

According to a report by Middle East Eye, Ahmed is a mechanic.

Ahmed was hospitalised for a third time on December 20 after he refused food, his sister, Shahmina Alam, told Al Jazeera.

“We know that he’s rapidly been losing weight in the last few days, losing up to half a kilogramme [1.1lbs] a day,” Alam told Al Jazeera in late December.

Ahmed, who is 180cm (5′11′), entered prison at a healthy 74kg (163lbs), but his last recorded weight was 60kg (132lbs).

“Kamran has been hospitalised for the fourth time recently,” Corno said.

Teuta Hoxha

Hoxha, 29, was on day 54 of her hunger strike on Thursday. She is being held at HMP Peterborough. She was also arrested in November 2024 on allegations of involvement in the Elbit Systems raid.

According to Prisoners for Palestine, Hoxha was moved from HMP Bronzefield on the day UK parliamentarians voted to proscribe Palestine Action – July 2, 2025.

Corno told Al Jazeera that she is in regular contact with Hoxha and that she has been having heart palpitations. “She’s not been able to sleep through the night for weeks on end. I can see her memory start to deteriorate.”

In a statement published on the Prisoners for Palestine website, Hoxha said: “This is a witch hunt, not a fair fight, and that behind the arrests of dissenting voices under counterterrorism powers, holding us on remand without trial for nearly two years and targeting protesters who condemn Palestinian suffering, is the palpably desperate attempt to force us all under the imperial boot of submission.”

Lewie Chiaramello

Chiaramello, 22, has type 1 diabetes and hence, he has been fasting every other day. He is on day 28 of his hunger strike.

He has been held in HMP Bristol since July 2025 in connection with an incident at RAF Brize Norton, according to Prisoners for Palestine, and faces charges of conspiring to enter a restricted area for purposes harmful to the UK’s safety and interests, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal damage. His trial is set for January 18, 2027.

On June 20, a group of Palestine Action activists broke into RAF Brize Norton, the largest Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire, and sprayed two military planes with red paint, causing an estimated $9.4m worth of damage.

“He’s been having to manage his insulin intake on his own with no medical supervision,” Corno said.

Who else has been on a hunger strike?

Four other imprisoned Palestine Action activists have ended their hunger strikes, mostly after being hospitalised.

This includes Qesser Zuhrah, 20 and Amu Gib, 30, who are being held at Bronzefield prison in Surrey. The pair began their hunger strikes on November 2 to coincide with the Balfour declaration of 1917, when Britain pledged to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Umar Khalid, 22, who has muscular dystrophy, ended his hunger strike after 13 days. Jon Cink ended his hunger strike after 41 days when he was hospitalised. Qesser Zuhrah ended her hunger strike after 48 days and was hospitalised. Amy Gib was also hospitalised.

Mali and Burkina Faso have announced they are imposing full visa bans on United States citizens in retaliation for US President Donald Trump’s ban on US visas for their citizens this month.

The two West African countries, which are both governed by the military, on Tuesday became the latest African nations to issue “tit-for-tat” visa bans on the US. These follow Trump’s new visa restrictions, which now apply to 39 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. The White House said they were imposed on “national security” grounds.

“In accordance with the principle of reciprocity, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation informs the national and international community that, with immediate effect, the Government of the Republic of Mali will apply the same conditions and requirements to US nationals as those imposed on Malian citizens,” the Malian ministry said in a statement.

Burkina Faso’s foreign minister, Karamoko Jean-Marie Traore, in a separate statement similarly cited a reciprocity rule for his country’s visa ban.

Which countries have issued bans on visas for US citizens?

The US directive issued on December 16 expanded full US visa bans to citizens of five nations other than Mali and Burkina Faso: Laos, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Syria.

Travellers holding travel documents issued by the Palestinian Authority were also banned from entering the US under the order.

The US cited the countries’ poor screening and vetting capabilities, information-sharing policies, visa overstay rates and refusal to take back their deported nationals for the ban.

Trump’s order also noted countries were additionally assessed based on whether they had a “significant terrorist presence”.

The US ban takes effect on Thursday.

Mali, Burkina Faso and neighbouring Niger have been plagued by violence from armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) for years. The violence in those countries has displaced millions of civilians.

On Friday, Niger banned entry for US citizens, also citing the US ban on its citizens. The country is also military-led like its neighbours Mali and Burkina Faso. All three formed the Alliance of Sahel States in July 2024 to tackle security problems and improve trade relations.

In its own reciprocal move, Chad stopped issuing visas to US citizens on June 6 with an exception for US officials. Only US citizens who were issued visas before June 9 are now allowed entry into Chad.

The country was on an initial list of 12 nations whose citizens the Trump administration issued a full visa ban on from June 9.

Which countries are affected by the US visa bans?

Citizens of 39 countries are now under full or partial entry restrictions to the US, according to the US-based Council on Foreign Relations think tank.

Those fully banned are:

• Afghanistan
• Burkina Faso
• Chad
• Equatorial Guinea
• Eritrea
• Haiti
• Iran
• Laos
• Libya
• Mali
• Myanmar
• Niger
• Republic of Congo
• Sierra Leone
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Syria
• Yemen
• Holders of travel documents issued by the Palestinian Authority are also fully banned.

Those partially restricted are:

• Angola
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Benin
• Burundi
• Cuba
• Dominica
• Gabon
• The Gambia
• Ivory Coast
• Malawi
• Mauritania
• Nigeria
• Senegal
• Tanzania
• Togo
• Tonga
• Turkmenistan
• Venezuela
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

Is Trump specifically targeting African countries with visa bans?

Trump’s approach to Africa regarding visa entries in his second term as US president is similar to that of his first administration when he issued a “Muslim ban”, which included citizens of three African nations – Somalia, Sudan and Libya – as well as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

In later updates to the ban, Sudan was removed while Chad was added.

Most countries under US entry restrictions since Trump took office on January 20 are in Africa. Of the 39 affected countries, 26 are African nations.

How have US-Africa trade relations fared under Trump?

Tradewise, the US has shifted away from its preferential African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade programme to a tariff-based regime that has also been applied to most other countries around the world under Trump’s tariffs policy.

From 2000, AGOA provided African nations with duty-free access to US markets, bolstering African exports to the US of a wide range of goods, from wine to cars.

AGOA created an estimated 300,000 jobs in African countries and indirectly sustained another 1.2 million jobs, according to the US-based Center for Strategic International Studies.

However, AGOA expired in September after the US Congress failed to renew it. Although the Trump administration said it supported a one-year extension, no steps have been announced to revive the programme.

Instead, African countries now face often steep tariffs as the US sometimes justifies them on political grounds.

South Africa, Africa’s richest country, for example, was slapped with a 30 percent tariff after Trump made debunked allegations of a “genocide” on the country’s white Afrikaner minority. The US government has since prioritised resettling Afrikaners as refugees in the US.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met with Trump at the White House in May and explained that crime in the country targets the population at large – not just its white citizens – but was unable to persuade Trump.

Trump’s administration is also prioritising its access to critical rare earth minerals, used to develop high-tech devices, in a bid to remain competitive with China, which mines about 60 percent of the world’s rare earth metals and processes 90 percent of them.

Trump took up a mediator role in the conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and neighbouring Rwanda this year after the DRC government proposed a minerals deal with the US. The US and United Nations accuse Rwanda of backing a rebellion by the M23 armed group in the eastern DRC.

Trump did not commit to US military intervention in the DRC but successfully secured a peace pact between the two countries on December 4 after applying diplomatic pressure on Rwanda.

Attacks on civilians by M23 have nonetheless continued despite the peace deal.

A clause in the pact granted US firms priority access to both the DRC’s and Rwanda’s mineral reserves, which include cobalt, copper, lithium and gold.

How about aid and security cooperation?

In early 2025, the Trump administration shut down the US Agency for International Development and cut billions of dollars of US foreign aid, affecting many African countries that greatly depended on the world’s largest funder of health and humanitarian aid.

Aid groups have since reported rising hunger in northern Nigeria, Somalia and northeastern Kenya.

Health observers and analysts have also raised the alarm about the risk of undoing work to prevent and contain the spread of HIV in Lesotho and South Africa.

In northern Cameroon, officials have reported a spike in malaria deaths as drug supplies fall. This month, the US unilaterally pledged $400m in health funding to the country over the next five years on the condition that Cameroon raises its own annual health spending from $22m to $450m.

African nations were also most affected when Trump recalled 30 career diplomats appointed by former President Joe Biden from 29 countries last week.

Fifteen of them had been stationed in African nations: Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia and Uganda.

Meanwhile, the US has continued to intensify strikes against armed groups linked to ISIL and al-Qaeda, similar to those during Trump’s first term as president from 2017 to 2021.

In Somalia, the US launched strikes in September targeting al-Shabab and the ISIL affiliate in Somalia Province, according to the US-based New America Foundation think tank.

The US also targeted ISIL- and al-Qaeda-linked groups in northwestern Nigeria for the first time on Thursday.

While those strikes were carried out in collaboration with the Nigerian government, a war of narratives prevailed between the two countries.

The US claims to be “saving” Nigerian Christians, who it alleges are experiencing a genocide.

Nigerian authorities, on the other hand, deny claims of genocide and say people of all religions have been badly affected by armed groups operating in the country.

Robbers stole items worth up to $105bn from safe-deposit boxes held at a German retail bank in Gelsenkirchen, North Rhine-Westphalia state, during the Christmas holiday, German police said on Tuesday.

The German news agency dpa reported that it may rank among the biggest thefts in the country’s history.

What happened and what was stolen?

The thieves broke into a branch of Sparkasse bank in the city of Gelsenkirchen, in North Rhine-Westphalia state, from an adjacent parking garage, according to the police, at some point when businesses were closed for the Christmas holiday.

The German state is home to museums and Gothic architecture. Its capital, Dusseldorf, is known for its shopping boulevard and the Rheinturm telecommunications tower.

Using a large drill, the thieves bore through a thick concrete wall of the bank and gained access to an underground vault room. Then, they forced open some 3,000 safe deposit boxes, before making off with cash, gold and jewellery.

A police spokesperson likened the break-in to the movie, Ocean’s Eleven, and described it as “very professionally executed”, according to the AFP news agency.

“A great deal of prior knowledge and/or a great deal of criminal energy must have been involved to plan and carry this out,” the spokesperson told the agency.

The bank said “more than 95 percent of the 3,250 customer safe deposit boxes were broken into by unknown perpetrators.”

Police say they were alerted to the robbery when a fire alarm went off on Monday, but have not confirmed exactly when the robbery took place.

How much are the stolen items worth?

Investigators estimate the total value of the stolen items to be anything between 10 and 90 million euros ($11.8m and $105.7m), according to police spokesperson Thomas Nowaczyk.

Police said the average insured value of each deposit box was more than 10,000 euros ($11,700). However, officers said several victims have reported that the contents of their boxes were worth significantly more than the insured amounts.

What do we know about the robbers?

No arrests have been made, and the thieves remain at large.

Security camera footage showed a black Audi RS 6 leaving the bank’s parking garage during the early hours of Monday, with masked people inside.

The police said the car’s licence plate had been stolen earlier in the city of Hanover, about 200km (124 miles) northeast of Gelsenkirchen, where the robbery took place.

How have bank customers reacted?

On Tuesday, angry customers rallied outside the bank branch, demanding answers about the robbery from the bank.

The police spokesperson told AFP that the bank branch remained closed for security reasons after threats were made against bank employees.

“We’re still on site, keeping an eye on things,” AFP quoted the police spokesperson as saying, adding “the situation has calmed down considerably.”

How has the bank responded?

The bank is writing to notify all customers affected by the robbery. It also set up a customer hotline for those affected.

It said it is also working with insurers to determine how compensation claims will be handled.

“We are shocked,” said bank press spokesman Frank Krallmann. “We are standing by our customers and hope that the perpetrators will be caught.”

Which other significant heists have happened recently?

October 2025: The Louvre, France

In late October, a gang of robbers broke into the Louvre Museum in Paris and stole eight Napoleonic pieces of jewellery in less than seven minutes. The thieves made off on motorcycles laden with eight items dating back to the Napoleonic era, dropping a ninth on their way out.

The stolen items of jewellery were estimated to be worth $102m.

So far, French authorities have arrested eight suspects over the Louvre heist.

The first four suspects, three men and a woman, were arrested, formally investigated and charged.

The last four suspects taken into custody are two men aged 38 and 39, and two women aged 31 and 40, from the Paris area. They are being investigated as possible accomplices. The names of the suspects arrested have not been made public.

September 2025: Museum of Natural History, France

On September 30, a 24-year-old Chinese woman was arrested in Barcelona on suspicion of stealing six gold nuggets from the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. The gold nuggets were worth about 1.5 million euros ($1.76m).

The woman was arrested while trying to dispose of melted gold – it is unclear who melted it or how. The museum’s alarms and security system had been disabled in a cyberattack, but it is also unclear whether the thieves were also behind that cyberattack or whether the theft was opportunistic.

March 2024: Los Angeles cash site, United States

Thieves stole at least $30m in cash from a GardaWorld facility in Los Angeles over the Easter weekend.

GardaWorld is a global security company which provides services such as facilities management, property management and cash handling.

Local media called the heist one of the biggest cash heists in LA history. There has not been a public announcement indicating that the burglars have been caught.

Russia has threatened to retaliate against Ukraine after alleging that nearly 100 drones had targeted one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences.

The threat on Monday was made as United States President Donald Trump tries to broker a peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine, which will enter its fifth year in February.

What has Russia claimed?

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alleged that Ukraine had launched the attack on the Valdai residence, one of Putin’s residences in the Novgorod region in northwestern Russia. The property is 360km (225 miles) north of Moscow.

Lavrov told reporters that Ukraine had launched 91 drones towards the residence. He added that air defence systems shot down the drones and no one was injured.

The Russian Ministry of Defence said 49 of the drones were shot down over the Bryansk region, one was shot down over the Smolensk region and 41 were shot down over the Novgorod region while en route.

“Such reckless actions will not go unanswered,” Lavrov said. “The targets for retaliatory strikes and the timing of their implementation by the Russian armed forces have been determined.”

Russian officials accused Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of carrying out the strike to derail the prospects of a peace agreement.

In an apparent reference to Zelenskyy, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev wrote on X: “The stinking Kiev b**tard is trying to derail the settlement of the conflict. He wants war. Well, now at least he’ll have to stay in hiding for the rest of his worthless life.”

Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said the strike took place on Sunday “practically immediately after” talks were held in Florida between Trump and Zelenskyy on ending Russia’s war on Ukraine.

After that meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy had voiced optimism, saying a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine was “close”.

Putin has not publicly commented on the attack yet. It is unclear where Putin was at the time of the attack, but he was holding meetings in the Kremlin on Saturday and Monday.

How has Ukraine responded?

Zelenskyy has strongly denied Russia’s allegation that Ukraine attacked one of Putin’s residences.

“Russia is at it again, using dangerous statements to undermine all achievements of our shared diplomatic efforts with President Trump’s team,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post on Monday.

“This alleged ‘residence strike’ story is a complete fabrication intended to justify additional attacks against Ukraine, including Kyiv, as well as Russia’s own refusal to take necessary steps to end the war.”

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also condemned Moscow’s claims, saying they were designed to undermine the negotiations.

In a post on X, Sybiha said the claim was intended “to create a pretext and false justification for Russia’s further attacks against Ukraine, as well as to undermine and impede the peace process”.

In another post on Tuesday, Sybiha wrote: “Almost a day passed and Russia still hasn’t provided any plausible evidence to its accusations of Ukraine’s alleged ‘attack on Putin’s residence.’ And they won’t. Because there’s none. No such attack happened.”

How has Trump reacted?

Trump appeared to accept the Russian version of events on Monday when he told reporters: “It’s one thing to be offensive. It’s another thing to attack his house. It’s not the right time to do any of that. And I learned about it from President Putin today. I was very angry about it.”

But when reporters asked Trump if US intelligence agencies had evidence of the alleged attack, Trump said: “We’ll find out.”

Congressman Don Bacon, a member of Trump’s Republican Party, criticised the president for accepting the Russian account of events without assessing the facts.

“President Trump and his team should get the facts first before assuming blame. Putin is a well known boldface liar,” Bacon wrote in an X post.

How have other world leaders reacted?

Like Trump, other leaders appeared to accept the Russian allegations.

In a statement released on Monday, the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote: “The United Arab Emirates has strongly condemned the attempt to target the residence of His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and denounced this deplorable attack and the threat it poses to security and stability.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote in an X post on Tuesday: “Deeply concerned by reports of the targeting of the residence of the President of the Russian Federation.”

Modi added that the ongoing diplomatic engagement being led by the US is the “most viable path” towards achieving peace. “We urge all concerned to remain focused on these efforts and to avoid any actions that could undermine them.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also condemned the alleged attack.

“Pakistan condemns the reported targeting of the residence of His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation. Such a heinous act constitutes a grave threat to peace, security, and stability, particularly at a time when efforts aimed at peace are underway,” Sharif wrote on X.

“Pakistan expresses its solidarity with the President of the Russian Federation, and with the government and people of Russia.”

Have Putin’s residences previously been attacked?

Russia has made previous claims of Ukrainian attacks on Putin’s residences, including on the Kremlin, Putin’s official residence and main workplace.

In May 2023, Moscow alleged that Ukraine had deployed two drones to attack Putin’s residence in the Kremlin citadel but said its forces had disabled the drones. Kyiv denied any involvement.

On December 25, 2024, Russia alleged that it had intercepted and destroyed a Ukrainian drone also targeting the Kremlin. Kyiv again denied responsibility.

Conversely, Ukraine has alleged that Russia has attacked Kyiv and other government buildings in Ukraine.

In September, the Ukrainian military said a Russian drone attack damaged a government building in Kyiv that is home to Ukraine’s cabinet. Plumes of smoke were seen emerging from the building. Russia said it had targeted Ukrainian military infrastructure only.

What has Russia now threatened to do?

While Russia has not outright threatened to end the peace talks, Moscow said it would realign its position in the talks.

“The diplomatic consequence will be to toughen the negotiating position of the Russian Federation,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday.

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow’s response “would not be diplomatic”. Indeed, it has warned that it plans to hit back militarily but has given no details of how or when it might do this.

Will this derail the US-led peace talks?

Speaking to reporters after his “terrific” meeting with Zelenskyy on Sunday at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump told reporters that Moscow and Kyiv were “closer than ever” to a peace deal.

But Trump has made this claim several times before. In April, Trump said Russia and Ukraine were “very close to a deal” after Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow.

On December 15, Trump also said Russia and Ukraine were “closer than ever” to a deal after talks in Berlin involving Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and NATO.

However, observers and analysts said the issue of territorial concessions remains a major sticking point. Trump’s 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, which he unveiled in November, involved Ukraine ceding large amounts of land that Russia has occupied during nearly four years of war. Zelenskyy has stated on numerous occasions that this is a line Ukraine will not cross.

Most analysts are sceptical that any progress has been made on this point and said the latest accusations against Ukraine will probably have little effect. “I don’t think there is anything to derail at this point,” said Marina Miron, an analyst at King’s College London.

The peace process “is not going well due to disagreements on key issues between Ukraine and Russia”, she told Al Jazeera.

“Trump has repeatedly claimed that a peace deal is close without sustainable agreement,” Keir Giles, a Russian military expert at the London think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera this month.

Russia has occupied nearly 20 percent of eastern Ukraine and has been slowly gaining territory as Ukraine’s military has been weakened by desertions, casualties and dwindling military aid. Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

“It’s probably impossible that Ukrainians will voluntarily withdraw from these territories unless we will also see a withdrawal of Russian forces on the other side,” Nathalie Tocci, director at the Rome-based think tank Istituto Affari Internazionali (Institute of International Affairs), told Al Jazeera.

Giles said there are still parallel negotiation tracks, however – one involving the US and Ukraine and another between Ukraine and European nations. He added, however, that there is no clear evidence that these efforts are fully coordinated or aligned in terms of strategy.

China has held two-day military drills – Justice Mission 2025 – around Taiwan, marking the sixth round of large-scale war games since 2022, when then-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi visited the island.

The exercise included 10 hours of live fire drills on Tuesday as Chinese forces practised encircling Taiwan and blockading its major ports.

What happened during the Justice Mission 2025?

The war games began on Monday in the waters and airspace to the north, southwest, southeast and east of Taiwan’s main island, according to China’s Eastern Theatre Command spokesperson Shi Yi.

The exercises saw China deploy its naval destroyers, frigates, fighter planes, bombers, drones, and long-range missiles to simulate seizing control of Taiwan’s airspace, blockading its ports, and striking critical infrastructure, “mobile ground targets” and maritime targets, Shi said.

The exercises also simulated a blockade of Taiwan and its main ports, Keelung and Kaohsiung.

Tuesday’s live-fire drills were held in five zones around Taiwan between 8am and 6pm local time (00:00 GMT and 10:00 GMT), according to the Eastern Theatre Command. Chinese forces fired long-range rockets into the waters around the island, according to a video released by the military on social media.

Taiwan’s coastguard said seven rockets were fired into two drill zones around the main island.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Defence said it had tracked 130 air sorties by Chinese aircraft, 14 naval ships and eight “official ships” between 6am on Monday and 6am on Tuesday.

Ninety of the air sorties crossed into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone (ADIZ), an area of land and sea monitored by Taipei, during the 24 hours, in the second-largest incursion of its kind since 2022.

How were the exercises different from last time?

Justice Mission 2025 was the largest war game since 2022 in terms of the area covered, according to Jaime Ocon, a research fellow at Taiwan Security Monitor.

“These zones are very, very big, especially the southern and southeast zones around Taiwan, which actually breached territorial waters,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to the region within 12 nautical miles (22km) of Taiwan’s coast. “That’s a big escalation from previous exercises.”

They also focused explicitly on blockading Taiwan, unlike past iterations, sending a strong message to Taipei and its unofficial allies, particularly the US and Japan.

“This is a clear demonstration of China’s capability to conduct A2/AD – anti-access aerial denial – making sure that Taiwan can be cut off from the world and that other actors like Japan, the Philippines, or the United States cannot directly intervene,” Ocon said.

A blockade would impact not only the delivery of weapons systems but also critical imports, such as natural gas and coal, that Taiwan relies on to meet nearly all its energy needs. It would also disrupt vital global shipping routes through the Taiwan Strait.

Alexander Huang, director-general of Taiwan’s Council on Strategic and Wargaming Studies, told Al Jazeera the drills were similar to those held after Pelosi’s visit in August 2022.

“For this drill, it actually interfered with international civil aviation routes and also maritime shipping routes. In previous drills, they tried to avoid that, but this time they actually disrupted the air and maritime traffic,” he said.

The drills also put pressure on Taiwan’s maritime and transport links to Kinmen and Matsu islands, which are closer to the Chinese mainland.

Why did China stage the exercises now?

China has a history of holding military exercises to express its anger with Taiwan and its allies, but large-scale exercises have become more frequent since Pelosi’s Taiwan visit.

Beijing claims Taiwan as a province and has accused the US of interfering in its internal affairs by continuing to sell weapons to Taipei and supporting its “separatist” government led by President William Lai Ching-te.

Washington does not officially recognise Taiwan, whose formal name is the Republic of China, but it has pledged to help Taipei defend itself under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the 1982 Six Assurances.

The Justice Mission 2025 came just days after Washington approved a record-breaking $11.1bn arms sale to Taiwan.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday that the drills were a “punitive and deterrent action against separatist forces who seek ‘Taiwan independence’ through military build-up, and a necessary move to safeguard China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Beijing sanctioned 30 US firms and individuals over the arms sale.

Experts also say the exercises were linked to a separate but related diplomatic row between China and Japan.

Beijing was angered in November by remarks from Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi that an attack on Taiwan would be a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan. Such a scenario would legally permit Japan to exercise its “right of collective self-defence” and deploy its military, she said.

How is Taiwan responding to the drills?

Taiwan cancelled more than 80 domestic flights on Tuesday and warned that more than 300 international flights could be delayed due to flight rerouting during the live-fire drills.

Taiwan’s Defence Ministry said the coastguard monitored the exercises near the outlying islands and that an undisclosed number of naval vessels had also been deployed nearby. Taipei also monitored all incursions into its ADIZ, including the Taiwan Strait, sections of coastal China, and waters around Taiwan.

In a statement on Tuesday, Defence Minister Wellington Koo said, “[Beijing’s] highly provocative actions severely undermine regional peace and stability [and] also pose a significant security risk and disruption to transport ships, trade activities, and flight routes.”

Koo described the exercises as a form of “cognitive warfare” that aimed to “deplete Taiwan’s combat capabilities through a combination of military and non-military means, and to create division and conflict within Taiwanese society through a strategy of sowing discord”.

How did the US respond to the drills?

US President Donald Trump has so far remained quiet about the military drills, telling reporters on Monday that he was “not worried”.

“I have a great relationship with President Xi, and he hasn’t told me anything about it,” Trump said when asked about the exercises during a news conference, according to Reuters. “I don’t believe he’s going to be doing it,” he added, seemingly referring to the prospect of actual military action targeting Taiwan.

William Yang, a senior analyst for Northeast Asia at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Trump might avoid saying much about the Justice Mission 2025 exercises as he hopes to meet President Xi Jinping in April to discuss a US-China trade deal. “It’s a diplomatic strategy to make sure the US response is not going to immediately upset the temporary trade truce between the US and China,” Yang said.

“I think it’s quite consistent with how he personally and his administration have been handling the issue of Taiwan by trying to de-prioritise making public statements,” he said.

Tensions are flaring along the Tajikistan-Afghanistan border in Central Asia with the Tajik government reporting multiple armed incursions this month, straining its fragile relationship with Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders.

More than a dozen people have been killed in attacks by men whom Tajik authorities call “terrorists” and the resulting clashes with Tajik forces, officials in Dushanbe and Beijing said. Victims include Chinese nationals working in remote areas of the mountainous former Soviet republic.

In the latest fighting this week, at least five people were killed in Tajikistan‘s Shamsiddin Shokhin district, including “three terrorists”, officials said.

Tajikistan has long opposed the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a country it shares a largely unsecured 1,340km (830-mile) border with.

Despite cautious diplomatic engagement between the two countries to adjust to new regional realities, analysts said, the frequency of the recent border clashes risks eroding the Taliban’s credibility and raises questions about its capacity to enforce order and security.

Here is all we know about the clashes along the Tajik-Afghan border and why they matter:

What’s happening on the Tajik-Afghan border?

The border runs along the Panj river through the remote, mountainous terrain of southern Tajikistan and northeastern Afghanistan.

On Thursday, Tajikistan’s State Committee for National Security said in a statement that “three members of a terrorist organisation” crossed into Tajik territory on Tuesday. The committee added that the men were located the following morning and exchanged fire with Tajik border guards. Five people, including the three intruders, were killed, it said.

Tajik officials did not name the armed men or specify which group they belonged to. The officials, however, said they seized three M-16 rifles, a Kalashnikov assault rifle, three foreign-made pistols with silencers, 10 hand grenades, a night-vision scope and explosives at the scene.

Dushanbe said this was the third attack originating from Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province in the past month that has resulted in the deaths of its personnel.

These attacks, Tajik officials said on Thursday, “prove that the Taliban government is demonstrating serious and repeated irresponsibility and non-commitment in fulfilling its international obligations and consistent promises to ensure security … and to combat members of terrorist organisations”.

The Tajik statement called on the Taliban to “apologise to the people of Tajikistan and take effective measures to ensure security along the shared border”.

Tajikistan has not suggested what the motive for the attacks may be, but the assaults have appeared to target Chinese companies and nationals working in the area.

How is China involved in all this?

Beijing is Tajikistan’s largest creditor and one of its most influential economic partners with a significant footprint in infrastructure, mining and other border-region projects.

China and Tajikistan also share a 477km (296-mile) border running through the high-altitude Pamir Mountains in eastern Tajikistan, adjacent to China’s Xinjiang region.

Two attacks were launched against Chinese companies and nationals in the last week of November. On November 26, a drone equipped with an explosive device attacked a compound belonging to Shohin SM, a private Chinese gold-mining company, in the remote Khatlon region on the Tajik-Afghan border, killing three Chinese citizens.

In a second attack on November 30, a group of men armed with guns opened fire on workers employed by the state-owned China Road and Bridge Corporation, killing at least two people in Tajikistan’s Darvoz district.

Tajik officials said those attacks had originated from villages in Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province but did not disclose any affiliation or motive behind the attacks.

Chinese nationals have also come under attack in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

China’s embassy in Dushanbe advised Chinese companies and personnel to evacuate the border area. Chinese officials demanded “that Tajikistan take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of Chinese enterprises and citizens in Tajikistan”.

Who is carrying out these attacks?

While the attackers have not been identified, analysts and observers believe the attacks carry the hallmarks of the ISIL (ISIS) affiliate in Khorasan Province (ISKP), which, they said, aims to discredit Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders.

“The ISKP has attacked foreigners inside Afghanistan and carried out attacks on foreigners inside Afghanistan as a key pillar of their strategy,” said Ibraheem Bahiss, a Kabul-based analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank.

“The aim is to shatter the Taliban’s image as a security provider with whom the regional governments should engage,” Bahiss told Al Jazeera.

How has the Taliban reacted to these attacks?

Kabul expressed its “deep sorrow” over the killings of Chinese workers on November 28.

The Taliban blamed the violence on an unnamed armed group which, it said, is “striving to create chaos and instability in the region and to sow distrust among countries”, and it assured Tajikistan of its full cooperation.

After this week’s clashes, Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban’s interior minister, said Kabul remains committed to the 2020 Doha Agreement, its deal with the United States for a phased foreign troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in exchange for Taliban commitments to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for attacking other countries.

Addressing a police cadet graduation ceremony at the National Police Academy in Kabul on Thursday, Haqqani said Afghanistan posed no threat to other countries and the door to dialogue remains open.

“We want to address problems, distrust or misunderstandings through dialogue. We have passed the test of confrontation. We may be weak in resources, but our faith and will are strong,” he said, adding that security had improved to the extent that Taliban officials now travel across the country without weapons.

The Taliban insists that no “terrorist groups” are operating from Afghanistan. However, in a recent report, the United Nations sanctions-monitoring committee cited the presence of multiple armed groups, including ISKP, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, al-Qaeda, the Turkistan Islamic Party, Jamaat Ansarullah and Ittehad-ul-Mujahideen Pakistan.

Jamaat Ansarullah is a Tajik group linked to al-Qaeda-aligned networks and active primarily in northern Afghanistan near the Tajik border.

How are relations between Tajikistan and the Taliban?

For decades, the relationship between Tajikistan and the Taliban has been defined by deep ideological hostility and ethnic mistrust with Dushanbe one of the group’s fiercest critics in Central Asia.

In the 1990s, Tajikistan aligned with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, led by Afghan military commander and former Defence Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud.

After the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, Tajikistan stood as the lone holdout among its neighbours in refusing to officially recognise the new government.

However, pragmatic diplomatic engagement quietly began about 2023, driven by economic necessity and shared security fears over the presence of ISKP. Stepping up the restoration of relations, a high-level Tajik delegation visited Kabul in November, the first such visit since the Taliban’s return to power.

But the two governments continue to trade accusations that the other is harbouring “terrorists”, the major thorn remaining in their bilateral relationship, and that drug smuggling is occurring across their border.

The Tajik-Afghan border has long been a major trafficking route for Afghan heroin and methamphetamine into Central Asia and onwards to Russia and Europe, exploiting the area’s rugged terrain and weak policing.

“The rising frequency [of the clashes] is new and interesting and raises a point: whether we might be seeing a new threat emerging,” Bahiss said.

Badakshan province, from which Tajik authorities said the attacks on Chinese nationals originate, presents a complex security situation for the Taliban as it has struggled to stem the threat from armed opposition groups, Bahiss added.

This security issue has been further complicated by the Taliban’s crackdown on poppy cultivation in the province, he said. The Taliban has faced resistance to this policy from farmers in the north. This is largely because the terrain of Badakshan means poppies are the only viable cash crop.

How is the Taliban faring with other neighbours?

Since the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan in 2021, some of its neighbours have maintained a pragmatic transactional relationship while others have not.

Relations with Pakistan, previously its patron, have particularly deteriorated. Islamabad accuses Kabul of harbouring fighters of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, also known as the Pakistan Taliban. Tensions over this issue boiled over in November when Pakistan launched air strikes in Kabul, Khost and other provinces, prompting retaliatory Taliban attacks on border posts.

Dozens of people were killed before a ceasefire was brokered by Qatar and Turkiye. However, both sides have engaged in fighting since, blaming each other for breaking the fragile truce.

The Taliban denies Islamabad’s allegations and has blamed Pakistan for its “own security failures”.

Meanwhile, the Taliban is now invested in developing a new relationship with Pakistan’s archrival, India, with delegations visiting Indian cities for trade and security discussions. New Delhi was earlier part of the anti-Taliban alliance. However, that approach has changed with the deteriorating ties between Pakistan and the Taliban.

Last week, Republican Ohio gubernatorial hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy challenged other Republicans over their idea that ancestry or heritage is what makes someone truly American.

“The idea that a ‘heritage American’ is more American than another American is un-American at its core,” Ramaswamy, who was born to Indian immigrant parents, said during Turning Point USA’s annual conference.

Remigration — once a fringe far-right notion advocating the deportation of ethnic minorities — is now gaining traction in United States Republican circles as President Donald Trump’s second term enters the final weeks of its first year.

Earlier this year, reports said that the US State Department was considering creating a department of remigration. A few months later, the Department of Homeland Security posted in favour of remigration online.

But it is not just American far-right figures evoking the idea of remigration; European far-right leaders are also joining in.

Here is a closer look at what remigration means and what its origins are.

What is remigration?

Broadly, remigration refers to when an immigrant voluntarily returns to their country of origin.

However, in the context of far-right movements, remigration is a method of ethnic cleansing.

For white ethnonationalists, remigration is a process through which all non-white people are forcibly removed from traditionally white countries.

What are the origins of remigration?

Ideas of remigration trace back to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. The Nazis attempted to “remigrate” the Jews in Germany to Madagascar.

But the concept got wind through the work of Renaud Camus, a French novelist who devised the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in his 2011 book, Le Grand Remplacement.

His widely debunked white nationalist theory suggests that elites are replacing white Christians in the West with non-white, primarily Muslim, people through mass migration and demographic changes. Camus calls this “genocide by substitution”.

Far-right nationalists in Europe and beyond have borrowed ideas from this theory.

Heidi Beirich, an expert on the American and European far-right movements, told Al Jazeera that the term remigration is “relatively new” in far-right circles.

Beirich said that the concept was popularised by Martin Sellner.

Sellner, 36, is the leader of Austria’s ultranationalist Identitarian Movement, a far‑right group known for anti-immigration activism and promoting ethnonationalist ideology. Ethnonationalists define the nation primarily by shared ethnicity, ancestry, culture and heritage.

“Remigration advocates the forced removal of non-white people from what Sellner and others with his beliefs view as historically white countries, basically Europe, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand,” Beirich explained.

Beirich said remigration in essence, is a “policy solution to the white supremacist ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory”.

Do different groups have different ideas?

There are strands of nationalists beyond ethnonationalism.

Civic nationalists, who also called liberal nationalists or constitutional nationalists, define the nation by shared political values, laws and institutions, regardless of ethnicity. They believe that a person belongs to a country if they hold legal citizenship and are committed to the state’s principles.

While civic nationalists are less enthusiastic about remigration than ethnonationalists, to them, remigration means voluntary return migration. This could mean policies or incentives for immigrants to return to their country of origin if they choose, often for economic, family or cultural reasons.

Why is the idea of remigration becoming mainstream?

Beirich said that Sellner has been pushing this idea with far-right parties in Europe for the past two years.

“The astounding thing is not that a xenophobic political party like AfD in Germany would be open to this, but rather that a white supremacist policy position is now being pushed by the US government.”

The AfD is a far-right party called Alternative for Germany, which is designated an “extremist” organisation in the country.

In May 2025, Axios reported, quoting an unnamed State Department official, that the department is planning to create an “Office of Remigration”.

Then, in an X post on October 14, the Department of Homeland Security wrote “remigrate,” adding a link to its mobile application, which allows US immigrants to self-deport.

Where is the remigration movement picking up?

The idea of remigration has been revived by far-right leaders in Europe as well.

This includes Herbert Kickl, the leader of Austria’s far-right anti-immigration Freedom Party (FPO).

“As People’s Chancellor, I will initiate the remigration of all those who trample on our right to hospitality,” Kickl said in the FPO manifesto ahead of the election in September 2024.

While FPO won most seats in the election, other parties — the conservative People’s Party (OVP), the Social Democrats (SPO) and the liberal NEOS — came together to form a ruling coalition under an early 2025 deal which sidelined the FPO.

Across the border in Germany, Alice Weidel, the leader of the AfD, referred to “remigration” while supporting the closure of the country’s borders to new immigrants at a party conference in January.

In May 2025, a conference called the Remigration Summit was held in Italy. It was attended by far-right activists from across Europe. InfoMigrants, a website which covers migration issues in Europe, estimated that 400 right-wing activists attended the summit.

But Beirich said that remigration, if implemented as a policy, would in effect be an “attempt to create all-white countries through ethnic cleansing”.

Four members of the advocacy group Palestine Action have pledged this week to continue their hunger strike amid grave medical warnings and the hospitalisations of their fellow protesters.

The group’s members are being held in five prisons in the United Kingdom over alleged involvement in break-ins at a facility of the UK’s subsidiary of the Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems in Bristol and a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire. They are protesting for better conditions in prison, rights to a fair trial, and for the UK to change a July policy listing the movement as a “terror” group.

Palestine Action denies charges of “violent disorder” and others against the eight detainees. Relatives and loved ones told Al Jazeera of the members’ deteriorating health amid the hunger strikes, which have led to repeated hospital admissions. Lawyers representing the detainees have revealed plans to sue the government.

The case has brought international attention to the UK’s treatment of groups standing in solidarity with Palestinians amid Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. Thousands of people have rallied in support of Palestine Action every week.

Hunger strikes have been used throughout history as an extreme, non-violent way of seeking justice. Their effectiveness often lies in the moral weight they place upon those in power.

Historical records trace hunger strikes back to ancient India and Ireland, where people would fast at the doorstep of an offender to publicly shame them. However, they have also proved powerful as political statements in the present day.

Here are some of the most famous hunger strikes in recent world history:

Irish Republican Movement hunger strikes

Some of the most significant hunger strikes in the 20th century occurred during the Irish revolutionary period, or the Troubles. The first wave was the 1920 Cork hunger strike, during the Irish War of Independence. Some 65 people suspected of being Republicans had been held without proper trial proceedings at the Cork County Gaol.

They began a hunger strike, demanding their release and asking to be treated as political prisoners rather than criminals. They were joined by Terence MacSwiney, the lord mayor of Cork, whose profile brought significant international attention to the independence cause. The British government attempted to break up the movement by transferring the prisoners to other locations, but their fasts continued. At least three prisoners died, including MacSwiney, after 74 days.

Later on, towards the end of the conflict and the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, imprisoned Irish Republicans protested against their internment and the withdrawal of political prisoner status that stripped them of certain rights: the right to wear civilian clothes, or to not be forced into labour.

They began the “dirty protest” in 1980, refusing to have a bath and covering walls in excrement. In 1981, scores of people refused to eat. The most prominent among them was Bobby Sands, an IRA member who was elected as a representative to the British Parliament while he was still in jail. Sands eventually starved to death, along with nine others, during that period, leading to widespread criticism of the Margaret Thatcher administration.

India’s Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was later popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, used hunger strikes as a tool of protest against the British colonial rulers several times. His fasts, referred to as Satyagraha, meaning holding on to truth in Hindi, were considered by the politician and activist not only as a political act but also a spiritual one.

Gandhi’s strikes sometimes lasted for days or weeks, during which he largely sipped water, sometimes with some lime juice. They achieved mixed results – sometimes, the British policy changed, but at other times, there were no improvements. Gandhi, however, philosophised in his many writings that the act was not a coercive one for him, but rather an attempt at personal atonement and to educate the public.

One of Gandhi’s most significant hunger strikes was in February 1943, after British authorities placed him under house arrest in Pune for starting the Quit India Movement back in August 1942. Gandhi protested against the mass arrests of Congress leaders and demanded the release of prisoners by refusing food for 21 days. It intensified public support for independence and prompted unrest around the country, as workers stayed away from work and people poured out into the streets in protest.

Another popular figure who used hunger strikes to protest against British rule in colonial India was Jatindra Nath Das, better known as Jatin Das. A member of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, Das refused food while in detention for 63 days starting from August 1929, in protest against the poor treatment of political prisoners. He died at the age of 24, and his funeral attracted more than 500,000 mourners.

Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons

Palestinians held, often without trial, in Israeli jails have long used hunger strikes as a form of protest. One of the most well-known figures is Khader Adnan, whose shocking death in May 2023 after an 86-day hunger strike drew global attention to the appalling treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government.

Adnan, who was 45 when he starved to death at the Ayalon Prison, leaving behind nine children, had repeatedly been targeted by Israeli authorities since the early 2000s. The baker from the occupied West Bank had once been part of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group as a spokesperson, although his wife later stated publicly that he had left the group and that he had never been involved in armed operations.

However, Adnan was arrested and held without trial multiple times, with some estimates stating that he spent a cumulative eight years in Israeli prisons. Adnan would often go on hunger strike during those detentions, protesting against what he said was usually a humiliating arrest and a detention without basis. In 2012, thousands in Gaza and the West Bank rallied in a non-partisan show of support after he went 66 days without food, the longest such strike in Palestinian history at the time. He was released days after the mass protests.

In February 2023, Adnan was once again arrested. He immediately began a hunger strike, refusing to eat, drink, or receive medical care. He was held for months, even as medical experts warned the Israeli government that he had lost significant muscle mass and had reached a point where eating would cause more damage than good. On the morning of May 2, Adnan was found dead in his cell, making him the first Palestinian prisoner to die in a hunger strike in three decades. Former Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti described his death as an “assassination” by the Israeli government.

Hunger strikes at Guantanamo

Following the 2002 opening of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp of the United States in Cuba, where hundreds of “terror” suspects were held prisoners, often with no formal charges, they used hunger strikes in waves to protest against their detention. The camp is notorious for its inhumane conditions and prisoner torture. There were 15 detainees left by January 2025.

The secret nature of the prison prevented news of earlier hunger strikes from emerging. However, in 2005, US media reported mass hunger strikes by scores of detainees – at least 200 prisoners, or a third of the camp’s population.

Officials forcefully fed those whose health had severely deteriorated through nasal tubes. Others were cuffed daily, restrained, and force-fed. One detainee, Lakhdar Boumediene, later wrote that he went without a real meal for two years, but that he was forcefully fed twice a day: he was strapped down in a restraining chair that inmates called the “torture chair”, and a tube was inserted in his nose and another in his stomach. His lawyer also told reporters that his face was usually masked, and that when one side of his nose was broken one time, they stuck the tube in the other side, his lawyer said. Sometimes, the food got into his lungs.

Hunger strikes would continue intermittently through the years at Guantanamo. In 2013, another big wave of strikes began, with at least 106 of the remaining 166 detainees participating by July. Authorities force-fed 45 people at the time. One striker, Jihad Ahmed Mustafa Dhiab, filed for an injunction against the government to stop officials from force-feeding him, but a court in Washington, DC rejected his lawsuit.

Protests against apartheid South Africa

Black and Indian political prisoners held for years on Robben Island protested against their brutal conditions by going on a collective hunger strike in July 1966. The detainees, including Nelson Mandela, had been facing reduced food rations and were forced to work in a lime quarry, despite not being criminals. They were also angry at attempts to separate them along racial lines.

In his 1994 biography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela wrote that prison authorities began serving bigger rations, even accompanying the food with more vegetables and hunks of meat to try to break the strike. Prison wardens smiled as the prisoners rejected the food, he wrote, and the men were driven especially hard at the quarry. Many would collapse under the intensity of the work and the hunger, but the strikes continued.

A crucial plot twist began when prison wardens, whom Mandela and other political prisoners had taken extra care to befriend, began hunger strikes of their own, demanding better living conditions and food for themselves. Authorities were forced to immediately settle with the prison guards and, a day later, negotiate with the prisoners. The strike lasted about seven days.

Later, in May 2017, South Africans, including the then Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who was imprisoned in a different facility during apartheid, supported hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners by participating in a collective one-day fast. At the time, late Robben Island veteran Sunny “King” Singh wrote in the South African paper Sunday Tribune that hunger strikes in the prison never lasted more than a week before things changed, and compared it with the protracted situation of Palestinian strikers.

“We were beaten by our captors but never experienced the type of abuse and torture that some of the Palestinian prisoners complain of,” he wrote. “It was rare that we were put in solitary confinement, but this seems commonplace in Israeli jails.”

Algeria’s parliament has begun debating a draft law that would criminalise France’s colonial rule from 1830 to 1962. Al Jazeera’s Nada Qaddourah explains what we know about the bill.

Russian forces have struck Ukraine’s southern Black Sea port of Odesa, damaging port facilities and a ship, the region’s governor says.

The attack late on Monday followed another at the weekend when Moscow carried out a sustained barrage of drones and missile attacks on the wider area around Odesa, which is home to ports crucial to Ukraine’s overseas trade and fuel imports. They followed Russian threats to cut “Ukraine off from the sea”.

The escalation in Russia’s assault on Odesa, Ukraine’s biggest port city, has unfolded as Washington steps up diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the war. Ukrainian officials met members of a US delegation on Friday in Florida while US envoys held talks with Russian representatives on Saturday.

“The situation in the Odesa region is harsh due to Russian strikes on port infrastructure and logistics,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters in Kyiv on Monday. “Russia is once again trying to restrict Ukraine’s access to the sea and block our coastal regions.”

What happened in the latest Russian attack on Odesa?

On Tuesday, the head of the Odesa Regional Military Administration, Oleh Kiper, said Russian strikes overnight had damaged a civilian cargo vessel and a warehouse in a district of Odesa while the roof of a two-storey residential building had caught fire.

Meanwhile, strikes on Saturday on the port of Pivdennyi near Odesa damaged storage reservoirs, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba said. Those came just one day after a ballistic missile strike, also in Pivdennyi, had killed eight people and wounded at least 30.

These are just the latest strikes in an escalation of hostilities in the area over the past few weeks.

Last week, Russia launched one of its largest aerial assaults of the war on the Black Sea region, damaging energy infrastructure and causing a power outage in Odesa, leaving hundreds of thousands of residents without electricity for several days.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence did not immediately comment on the strikes, but the Kremlin has previously described Ukraine’s economic infrastructure as a “legitimate military objective” during the nearly four-year war.

On the Telegram messaging app, Kuleba said on Friday that Russian forces were targeting power infrastructure and a bridge over the Dniester River near the village of Mayaky, southwest of Pivdennyi, which was struck five times in 24 hours.

That bridge links parts of the region separated by waterways and serves as the primary westbound route to border crossings with Moldova. It is currently out of operation. Kuleba said the route normally carries about 40 percent of Ukraine’s fuel supplies.

Why is Russia targeting Odesa?

“The focus of the war may have shifted towards Odesa,” Kuleba said, warning that the “crazy” attacks could intensify as Russia tries to weaken Ukraine’s economy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said Moscow wants to restrict Ukraine’s Black Sea access in retaliation for Kyiv’s recent drone attacks on Russia’s sanctions-evading “shadow fleet” of vessels, which carry a variety of commodities.

Ukraine said those vessels are used to illegally export sanctioned oil, which provides Russia with its main source of revenue for financing its full-scale invasion of its neighbour.

How important is the port of Odesa to Ukraine?

Odesa’s port has long been central to Ukraine’s economy. Called a “pearl by the sea”, Odesa is Ukraine’s third most populous city after Kyiv and Kharkiv.

Black Sea ports – including Odesa and two others close by, Pivdennyi and Chornomorsk – and Mykolaiv to the east handled more than 70 percent of Ukraine’s exports before the war.

But Odesa’s role as a trading hub has grown in recent years as ports in the Zaporizhia, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions have been occupied by Russia.

Since the war began in February 2022, Ukraine has continued to rank among the world’s top five exporters of wheat and corn – largely through Odesa.

By targeting Odesa’s shipping facilities with missiles and drones, Ukrainian officials said, Putin aims to destroy Ukrainian trade and business infrastructure.

Zelenskyy, who has previously accused Russia of “sowing chaos” on the people of Odesa, said: “Everyone must see that without pressure on Russia, they have no intention of genuinely ending their aggression.”

What would it mean for Ukraine if Odesa were destroyed?

If the port of Odesa were badly damaged, the economic impact for Ukraine would be severe. The city and its surrounding areas would suffer major job losses in the shipping and logistics industries, seriously squeezing local incomes. Meanwhile, port-dependent businesses would falter and investment would fall away.

Nationally, Ukraine’s export capacity would be hit hard. As a key gateway for grain and other commodities, disruptions there would raise transport costs, slow shipments and reduce export volumes, choking foreign currency earnings and piling pressure on the hryvnia, Ukraine’s currency.

Elsewhere, farmers would suffer from lower prices for their produce as well as storage bottlenecks with knock-on effects across rural economies. The government would also lose customs revenue just as reconstruction costs would rise, weakening the country’s overall economic resilience.

What other acts of maritime warfare have Ukraine and Russia engaged in during the war?

Over the past six months, maritime warfare between Ukraine and Russia has intensified. Both sides have targeted naval and commercial assets across the Black Sea and beyond.

Ukrainian forces have increasingly used underwater drones and unmanned surface vessels to strike ships tied to Russia’s shadow fleet.

Several shadow fleet tankers, including the Kairos and Virat, were hit by Ukrainian naval drones in the Black Sea near Turkish waters in late November.

Kyiv has expanded its reach elsewhere, claiming drone strikes in the Mediterranean on December 19 on the Qendil, a Russian-linked tanker, marking an expansion in Kyiv’s maritime operations.

At the same time, Russian forces have ramped up attacks on commercial targets, including a Turkish-flagged ship carrying trucks and other freight near Odesa with drone attacks on December 13.

These actions reflect a shift towards what is referred to as “asymmetric naval warfare”, in which drones and improvised systems play a growing role in disrupting each side’s economic and military support networks at sea, experts said.

The Israeli security cabinet has approved 19 new settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank as the right-wing government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moves to prevent the formation of a viable Palestinian state.

As Netanyahu’s government has made the annexation of occupied Palestinian territory a priority, the United Nations has said Israeli settlement expansions in 2025 have reached their highest level since 2017.

“These figures represent a sharp increase compared to previous years,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, noting an average of 12,815 housing units were added annually from 2017 to 2022.

Under the current far-right government, the number of settlement and outposts in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem has risen by nearly 50 percent – from 141 in 2022 to 210 now. An outpost is built without government authorisation while a settlement is authorised by the Israeli government.

Nearly 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population of 7.7 million people lives in these settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.

Here’s everything you need to know about the newly approved settlements and what they mean for the future of Palestinian statehood.

Where are the new settlements?

The new settlements are spread across the West Bank – home to more than three million Palestinians – from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south.

Most of them are close to the densely populated Palestinian villages of Duma, Jalud, Qusra and al-Lubban Asharqiya in the Nablus governorate and Sinjil in the Ramallah and el-Bireh governorate, according to Peace Now, an antisettlement watchdog group based in Israel. Other locations identified by the watchdog for the new settlement areas are in the northwestern West Bank, in the Salfit governorate, near the Palestinian towns of Sa’ir and Beit Sahour, and other areas near Bethlehem and in the Jericho governorate.

Israel’s construction spree is entrenching the occupation and squeezing Palestinians out of their homeland. Settlements dot the West Bank and are often connected by Israeli-only highways while Palestinians face roadblocks and security checks, making their daily commutes harrowing experiences.

Israel has also built Separation Barrier that stretches for more than 700km (435 miles) through the West Bank restricting movement of Palestinians. Israel says the wall is for security purposes.

Under a dual legal system, Palestinians are tried in Israel’s military courts while crimes committed by settlers are referred to a civilian court.

Israel’s latest approval also includes settlements in Ganim and Kadim, two of the four West Bank settlements east of Jenin that were dismantled as part of Israel’s 2005 disengagement plan, a unilateral withdrawal ordered by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Five of the 19 settlements already existed but had not previously been granted legal status under Israeli law, according to a statement from the office of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Israel controls most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territory Palestinians want to be part of a future state along with Gaza. Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a 1967 war. It later annexed East Jerusalem, which Palestinians see as their future capital.

Israeli settlements and outposts are Jewish-only communities built on Palestinian land and they can range in size from a single dwelling to a collection of high-rises. About 700,000 settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to Peace Now.

The latest approval comes at a time when the United States has been working with Israel and Arab allies to move the Gaza ceasefire into a second phase. After a meeting on Friday of top officials from the US, Egypt, Turkiye and Qatar in the US city of Miami, Florida, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan accused Israel of committing repeated violations of the ceasefire that began in October.

Israel still controls nearly half of Gaza’s territory since a ceasefire was announced on October 10 after more than two years of a genocidal war killed more than 70,000 Palestinians.

Has settlement construction spiked in recent years?

The new settlements bring the total number approved over the past three years to 69, according to a statement from the office of Smotrich, who is a vocal proponent of settlement expansion and a settler himself.

In May, Israel approved 22 new settlements in the West Bank, the biggest expansion in decades.

The UN chief has condemned what he described as Israel’s “relentless” expansion of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. It “continues to fuel tensions, impede access by Palestinians to their land and threaten the viability of a fully independent, democratic, contiguous and sovereign Palestinian state”, Guterres said this month.

Palestinians have also been facing increasing settler violence since Israel’s war on Gaza began.

According to data from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), settlers have attacked Palestinians nearly 3,000 times over the past two years.

Settler attacks often escalate during the olive harvest from September to November, a vital time of year that provides a key source of income for many Palestinian families.

Settlers are often armed and frequently accompanied or protected by Israeli soldiers. In addition to destroying Palestinian property, they have carried out arson attacks and killed Palestinian residents.

Every West Bank governorate has faced settler attacks over the past two years, data from OCHA shows.

Are the settlements legal under international law?

No. The UN, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Committee of the Red Cross all consider Israeli settlements as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlaws settler activity.

In a landmark judgement in July 2024, the ICJ, the UN’s top court, found that Israel’s occupation, settlement activity and annexation measures are illegal. In its nonbinding advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled that Israel’s continued presence in occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.

The judges pointed to a wide list of policies – including the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, use of the area’s natural resources, the annexation and imposition of permanent control over lands and discriminatory policies against Palestinians – all of which it said violated international law.

Two months later, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian territory within a year.

But Israel has defied the resolution by the global body backed by its ally – the United States. Washington has extended diplomatic cover to Israel against numerous UN resolutions.

Since returning to power in January, US President Donald Trump has adopted a permissive stance towards Israeli settlement activity, breaking with longstanding US policy.

In 2019, he said Israeli settlements in the West Bank were not inherently illegal under international law. Trump also revoked his predecessor President Joe Biden’s sanctions on several settlers and groups accused of perpetrating violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

US sanctions on settlers under Biden came under Washington’s long-held policy that settlements are the biggest impediments to the two-state solution to the conflict.

However, Trump and his officials have repeatedly said Israel cannot annex the West Bank. “It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries,” Trump told Time magazine in October. “Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

What will the new settlements mean for the future of a Palestinian state?

The growing settlements – together with other projects undertaken by Netanyahu’s government like the E1 settlement plan that will split the West Bank – are further squeezing Palestinians in occupied territory.

Settlement expansions have drawn criticism from the international community, including Israel’s European allies, who said the steps undermine prospects for a two-state solution.

But Netanyahu and his far-right cabinet, including Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have doubled down on their rhetoric against a Palestinian state.

“On the ground, we are blocking the establishment of a Palestinian terror state,” Smotrich said in his statement on Sunday.

In June, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway slapped sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir for inciting violence.

Several European nations, including the UK and France, as well as Australia recognised Palestinian statehood in September in a push for the two-state solution.

Israel condemned the move, and Netanyahu said he won’t allow a Palestinian state. He has previously boasted how he scuttled the 1993 and 1995 Oslo peace accords by boosting settlement expansion in occupied territory.

“It’s not going to happen. There will be no Palestinian state to the west of the Jordan River,” Netanyahu said in an address in September. “For years, I have prevented the creation of that terror state against tremendous pressure, both domestic and from abroad.”

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has released thousands more documents relating to the prosecution of the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein, including photographs of prominent figures he spent time with. But campaigners behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which compelled the Justice Department on Friday to release all files still sealed, say far too much information in them has been redacted.

Furthermore, according to US media, at least 16 of the files – which they said were disclosed late – have since “disappeared” from the website where they were released. The deleted files included a photograph showing President Donald Trump.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump signed into law after it passed through Congress in November, required the government to release all remaining unclassified material in its possession relating to Epstein’s and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking cases. Maxwell is currently serving 20 years in prison for her part in the scandal.

Despite heavy redaction of many of the documents, which has angered Democrats and some Republicans alike, there is some new information about the powerful people who associated with the disgraced late financier.

The Justice Department said it will release more documents in the coming weeks.

Here’s what we know about what’s been released so far:

What’s new in this tranche of Epstein files?

This is just the latest release of documents relating to the prosecution of Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. The first tranche of about 950 pages of court documents was made public in early 2024.

One document released this time around confirms that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was tipped off about the convicted sex offender’s crimes nearly a decade before he was first arrested.

In September 1996, Epstein survivor Maria Farmer complained to the FBI that the late financier was involved in child sex abuse. Farmer said officials failed to take steps to investigate.

While the name of the complainant is redacted in the document relating to this complaint to the FBI, Farmer has confirmed it was made by her.

Now in her 50s, Farmer said in a statement via her lawyers after the release on Friday that she feels “redeemed” and this was “one of the best days of my life”.

“I want everyone to know that I am shedding tears of joy for myself but also tears of sorrow for all the other victims that the FBI failed,” she said.

Newly released transcripts of grand jury proceedings also include testimony from FBI agents who described interviews that they conducted with girls and young women describing their experiences of being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest interviewee was 14, according to local media.

One woman, then aged 21, told a grand jury that Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and that she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

“For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said.

They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said, adding that she told them that if they were under age, “just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

Much of the material published had already been circulating in the public domain after years of court action and investigations.

However, many of the new photos – some of them heavily blacked out – feature well-known public figures.

Who features in the newly released photos?

Among the documents released on Friday are photographs in a folder labelled “DOJ Disclosures”. Most of the photographs were seized by the FBI during various searches of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the US Virgin Islands.

New photos show the musicians Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson and Diana Ross in photographs with Epstein and at times with other people whose faces have been blacked out.

In one image, Jagger can be seen sitting between Epstein and former US President Bill Clinton. Popstar Jackson is also pictured standing next to Clinton and posing for a photo with Epstein in front of a painting in another.

Other famous men featured in the newly released photos include the actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Chris Tucker, billionaire Richard Branson, former UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor – formerly known as Britain’s Prince Andrew – and his former wife, Sarah Ferguson.

In one black and white image, Andrew can be seen lying across the laps of five people whose faces have all been blacked out while Maxwell stands behind them.

The Justice Department did not include any details about the contents or context of the photos.

Virginia Giuffre, who was one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers and who died by suicide in April aged 41, accused Mountbatten-Windsor of sexual abuse when she was 17. He settled a lawsuit with her in 2022 but continued to deny the allegation.

Another prominent figure among the photos is Clinton. One photo shows him in a swimming pool with Maxwell and another person whose face has been blacked out. Another photo shows the former US president in a hot tub with a woman whose face is also redacted.

While Clinton has never been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein’s crimes, his spokesperson said the White House was using him as a scapegoat.

“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Clinton in the past has said he cut ties with Epstein before the late financier pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.

Does Trump appear in the Epstein files?

Trump hardly appears in the files at all. The few photos that do feature him are ones that have been circulating in the public domain for decades.

According to one court document released on Friday, Epstein was alleged to have taken a 14-year-old girl to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and to have introduced her to the president.

While introducing her, Epstein elbowed Trump, asking him – referring to the teenager: “This is a good one, right?” Trump smiled and nodded in agreement, said the document from a case against Epstein’s estate and Maxwell in 2020.

In the court filing, the unnamed plaintiff herself makes no specific accusation against Trump.

In response to media requests for comment about this court document, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Trump administration was “the most transparent in history” and by “recently calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, the Trump Administration has done more for the victims than Democrats ever have,” she added.

Have some of the files disappeared since they were published on Friday?

Apparently, yes. One image, originally labelled File 468, which showed the inside of a desk drawer, included a photograph of Trump alongside Epstein, US first lady Melania Trump and Maxwell.

Other missing photos were images of paintings depicting nude women and one showing a series of photographs on a cupboard and in drawers.

On Saturday, The Associated Press news agency reported that at least 16 files published on Friday had disappeared from the Justice Department’s webpage.

The department has not provided any explanation or statement to the public about this but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”

Democrats on the Oversight Committee in the US House of Representatives also released 68 photos, drawn from the 95,000 photos and files the Oversight Committee has so far received from the Epstein estate.

Democrats in the committee said the images, which they released on Thursday, “were selected to provide the public with transparency into a representative sample of the photos” and “to provide insights into Epstein’s network and his extremely disturbing activities”.

Following the Justice Department’s release on Friday, the committee’s Democratic members questioned in a post on X why the image featuring a photo of Trump, a Republican, was missing, stating: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

Why has so much been redacted?

Among the thousands of documents published on Friday, at least 550 pages were reportedly fully redacted.

One 119-page document labelled “Grand Jury-NY” is completely redacted as is a set of three consecutive documents totalling 255 pages. Each page is fully blacked out.

Campaigners behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act said they had hoped to obtain more information about how the sex offender had been able to avoid serious federal charges for so many years.

However, many crucial FBI interviews with Epstein’s accusers and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions are unreadable.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, sent a six-page letter to members of Congress laying out the redaction process, noting that the law mandates that the department omit or redact any references to victims and files that could jeopardise pending investigations or litigation.

Blanche explained that he had, therefore, instructed attorneys to redact or withhold material that contained personally identifiable information about victims; depicted or contained child sexual abuse materials; would jeopardise an active investigation or prosecution; or contained classified national defence or foreign policy information.

Without specifying which, Blanche added that in some instances, the department had withheld or redacted information covered by deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege and attorney-client privilege.

When will the remaining files be released?

The Justice Department has said the publication of thousands more documents concerning investigations into Epstein will be released in the coming days as the year-end holidays approach.

The department missed its original Friday deadline to release all the information it had on Epstein in violation of the law signed by Trump in November ordering a complete release within 30 days.

After the drop on Friday, the department published two much smaller tranches on Saturday, which went beyond the initial redactions and featured identities of prosecutors, FBI case agents and other law enforcement personnel who appeared before two federal grand juries in New York state.

Several US lawmakers expressed anger about the White House’s failure to produce all the documents required under the law within the time limit.

Representatives Ro Khanna, a Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Republican – the duo who introduced the petition that eventually led to the passing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act – strongly criticised the partial release on social media.

Massie wrote that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law”.

Khanna called the release so far “disappointing” and added: “We’re going to push for the actual documents.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer accused the Trump administration of being “hell-bent on hiding the truth” and reiterated that the failure to release all the Epstein documents by Friday’s deadline amounts to “breaking the law”.

Meanwhile, officials from the Trump administration have been publicising the photographs featuring former Democratic President Clinton and hailing the current government as “the most transparent in history”.

Can campaigners take further steps to obtain more of the documents?

In a statement, Schumer said Senate Democrats are working “closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by [US Attorney General] Pam Bondi”.

Representatives Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, said they are examining “all legal options” after “the Department of Justice is now making clear it intends to defy Congress itself.”

“Donald Trump and the Department of Justice are now violating federal law as they continue covering up the facts and the evidence about Jeffrey Epstein’s decades-long, billion-dollar, international sex trafficking ring,” Garcia and Raskin said in a statement.

Senator Ron Wyden, another top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee who investigated Epstein’s financial ties, said on social media that the failure to release all the files was “a continuation of this administration’s coverup on behalf of a bunch of pedophiles and sex traffickers”.

The Associated Press reported that if Democratic lawmakers so choose, they could go to court to force the Justice Department to comply with the law. However, that would likely be a lengthy process.

Separately, the House Oversight Committee has issued a subpoena for the Epstein files, which could give Congress another avenue to force the release of more information to the committee. But that would require Republicans to join them in contempt-of-Congress proceedings against a Republican administration.

Singapore has reported a growing number of “rogue” or “shadow fleet” tankers operating off its shores in and around one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors.

According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence data cited by international maritime authorities, at least 27 such ships transited the Singapore Strait in early December, with another 130 clustered nearby around Indonesia’s Riau Archipelago.

While traffic through the strait remains dense and appears outwardly routine – more than 80,000 vessels pass through it each year – ship-spotters and analysts say the profile of some of the ships using these waters has recently changed.

Why are so many ‘rogue’ tankers appearing near Singapore?

Conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East has sparked a surge in Western sanctions on oil exports from countries such as Russia and Iran. The European Commission and the United States Trump administration have both recently renewed or extended sanctions against Venezuelan oil, as well.

As a result, a parallel, unofficial maritime network has emerged to keep sanctioned oil moving.

The Singapore Strait is a vital artery for global maritime trade, carrying about one-third of the world’s traded goods at some point along their journeys. For tankers at sea, it is almost unavoidable – the strait is a natural gateway between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, also a busy trade artery.

The Maritime and Port Authority monitors vessel movements within Singaporean waters. But international law limits what action it can take once ships move into the high seas – in effect, international waters – allowing shadow fleets to thrive in regulatory grey zones.

In recent weeks, suspect shipping activity has been noted just beyond Singapore’s territorial waters – roughly 22.2 kilometres from its coast – in international waters, just outside of the city state’s law enforcement reach.

What are ‘shadow fleets’ and how do they avoid sanctions?

As a result of record sanctions by Western governments in recent years over Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear programme and, most recently, United States President Donald Trump’s campaign against Venezuela, the number of falsely flagged ships globally has more than doubled this year to more than 450, most of them tankers, according to the International Maritime Organization database.

All vessels at sea are required to fly a flag showing the legal jurisdiction governing their operations in international waters. The body which grants ship nationalities is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

A shadow ship, or “ghost” ship, is typically an ageing vessel with obscure ownership. These vessels frequently change flags – for instance, when the US seized the tanker, Skipper, off the coast of Venezuela earlier this month, the government of Guyana, Venezuela’s neighbour, said it was “falsely flying the Guyana flag”, and clarified that it was not registered in the country.

Operators of shadow ships also falsify registration details, broadcast false geo-location codes, or even switch off tracking systems altogether to evade detection and skirt UNCLOS laws.

These vessels typically carry sanctioned oil and other restricted goods such as military equipment. They often conduct risky ship-to-ship transfers of cargo under the cover of night to avoid detection. This can create serious safety and environmental risks.

Additionally, most of the tankers are owned by shell companies in jurisdictions such as Dubai, where rapid buying and selling by anonymous or newly formed firms can take place, making it even harder to trace their origins.

Jennifer Parker, a specialist in maritime law at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said the increasing number of shadow fleets presents a “real challenge”.

Parker told Al Jazeera that “finding out who owns them and who insures them has been incredibly difficult because of the [murky] paper trail around them”.

She added that “often they would do what is called bunkering, which is the process of transferring fuel at sea between ships. So that makes it hard to track where that ship has actually come from and where that oil has come from.”

She added: “Sometimes, what they do is actually mix oil, so you will have a legitimate ship that will do a ship-to-ship transfer at sea with a shadow fleet and they will mix the oil so it becomes hard to really trace where that oil has come from … to avoid sanctions.”

What sort of problems do these tankers cause?

When ageing, uninsured vessels are involved in accidents, it can lead to environmental disasters like oil spills.

According to Bunkerspot, a specialist maritime publication, a shadow tanker spill, which can cause enormous damage to water, wildlife and local coastlines, can cost up to $1.6bn in response and cleanup alone.

Last December, Russian authorities scrambled to contain an oil spill in the Kerch Strait caused by two 50-year-old tankers which had been damaged during a heavy weekend storm. The scale of the environmental damage and the associated cleanup costs remain unclear.

In addition to vessel collisions, they can cause environmental damage through chemical leaks and illegal waste dumping.

Who uses shadow fleets the most?

Russia is the primary beneficiary of ghost fleet trading. Moscow has largely maintained its oil exports despite Western sanctions, ensuring steady revenue for its war in Ukraine. Though not to the same extent, Iran and Venezuela also sell fossil fuels using ghost fleets.

China and India, currently the largest buyers of Russian crude, benefit from steep discounts, often purchasing oil well below the Western-imposed $60 per barrel price cap, which was imposed in December 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Tracking by S&P Global and Ukrainian intelligence shows that Russia relied heavily on its shadow tanker fleet in 2025. India has been the main destination, importing about 5.4 million tonnes (or 55 percent of Russian crude oil sales via shadow tankers) between January and September.

China has taken a smaller but still significant share of about 15 percent. Overall, most Russian seaborne crude now moves outside Group of Seven (G7)-compliant shipping, underscoring the shadow fleet’s central role in this trade.

What actions have governments taken against shadow fleets?

To avoid enforcement of sanctions, many shadow tankers have moved out of major shipping lanes. In part, this is down to European authorities now requiring physical inspections during ship-to-ship transfers, making it riskier for these vessels to operate on conventional routes.

For instance, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Estonia recently began carrying out insurance checks on tankers transiting the Gulf of Finland and the waters between Sweden and Denmark. This is aimed at ensuring compliance with 2022 sanctions on Russian oil.

Meanwhile, in July 2025, the United Kingdom imposed measures – such as restrictions on access to UK ports, insurance and financial services – on 135 shadow fleet vessels and two linked firms, aiming to reduce Russia’s shipping capacity and cut its energy earnings.

In the US, President Donald Trump has warned that comparable measures will follow if Russia refuses to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, raising the prospect of closer transatlantic coordination with the UK and Europe against shadow fleets.

Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner were found dead in their Los Angeles home on Sunday. The police and investigators believe the couple suffered fatal stab wounds.

On Monday, police arrested the legendary director’s 32-year-old son, Nick Reiner, in connection with the deaths.

Rob Reiner directed several United States movie classics, including When Harry Met Sally and The Princess Bride. He was also a devoted activist for liberal causes and a frequent critic of US President Donald Trump.

So, what do we know about Nick Reiner, and what was his alleged involvement in his parents’ killing?

Who killed Rob Reiner and his wife?

Nick was revealed to be in Los Angeles police custody on Monday after the bodies of his parents were discovered inside their home in the upscale Brentwood neighbourhood.

The Los Angeles Fire Department said it responded to a medical aid request shortly after 3:30pm on Sunday [02:30 GMT Monday], and found a man and woman dead inside.

Rob Reiner’s daughter was the first to find the bodies of her parents and called the authorities, according to multiple reports.

In a statement, the Los Angeles Police Department said it was treating the deaths as homicides. Police have not released a full official timeline of how the killings occurred or the motivation behind them.

Nick Reiner remains in custody without bail. On Monday, Los Angeles Police chief Jim McDonnell said Nick Reiner was “booked for murder”.

Prosecutors will receive the case on Tuesday as they weigh whether to file formal charges against him.

Who is Nick Reiner?

Nick Reiner is the middle child of Rob and Michele Singer Reiner. They have two other children, Jake and Romy.

Nick’s struggles with substance abuse were longstanding, about which he had publicly spoken.

Rob Reiner, in a 2016 interview, said his son’s heroin addiction began about age 15, leading him into a cycle of dependency that persisted for years.

He underwent multiple rehabilitation stays, at least 17, by some accounts, and experienced periods of homelessness as a result of his addiction and the difficulties he faced in recovery.

His addiction issues inspired the 2015 semi-autobiographical movie Being Charlie, co-written by the father and son duo, and directed by Rob Reiner, about the struggles of a famous father and an addicted son.

The film was seen as an attempt to explore and heal aspects of their relationship, reflecting how deeply addiction had affected their family.

“It forced us to understand ourselves better than we had,” Rob Reiner told the AP news agency in 2016. During a YouTube interview series when the film was released, Nick Reiner reflected on his upbringing with his father, stating, “We didn’t bond a lot,” and acknowledged that collaborating on the film helped them “feel closer”.

Who was Rob Reiner?

Rob Reiner was a highly influential figure in US film and television. He was the son of comedy legend Carl Reiner, who died in 2020 at the age 98.

The Emmy-winning actor first gained fame as Michael “Meathead” Stivic in the 1970s TV sitcom, All in the Family. Rob Reiner went on to become a celebrated director, responsible for such classics as This Is Spinal Tap, Stand by Me, The Princess Bride, and A Few Good Men.

Legendary actress and Oscar winner Kathy Bates, who won the coveted award as the star of Rob Reiner’s 1990 film, Misery, said she “loved Rob”.

“He was brilliant and kind, a man who made films of every genre to challenge himself as an artist,” she said in a statement. “He changed the course of my life. Michele was a gifted photographer.”

Beyond filmmaking, Rob Reiner was an active political and social voice, often engaging in public debates on issues ranging from civil rights to public policy. He was a fierce critic of US President Trump.

During Trump’s first term, Reiner repeatedly described the president as “mentally unfit” and “unqualified” to serve in office.

What was Trump’s reaction?

On Monday, Trump made a social media post in which he described Reiner as “tortured and struggling” and claimed that both he and his wife had died, “reportedly due to the anger he caused” by opposing Trump during his presidency.

“He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Trump, who is known for aggressively targeting critics and commending allies, did not present any proof that Rob Reiner’s political stance was linked to the couple’s deaths.

The post was met with sharp condemnation from politicians across the political spectrum, including both Democrats and Republicans.

New Delhi, India – A newly released Bollywood spy thriller is winning praise and raising eyebrows in equal measure in India and Pakistan, over its retelling of bitter tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

Sunk in a sepia tone, Dhurandhar, which was released in cinemas last week, is a 3.5-hour-long cross-border political spy drama that takes cinemagoers on a violent and bloody journey through a world of gangsters and intelligence agents set against the backdrop of India-Pakistan tensions. It comes just months after hostilities broke out between the two countries in May, following a rebel attack on a popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India blamed Pakistan for. Islamabad has denied role in the attack.

Since the partition of India to create Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought four wars, three of them over the disputed region of Kashmir.

The film stars the popular actor Ranveer Singh, who plays an Indian spy who infiltrates networks of “gangsters and terrorists” in Karachi, Pakistan. Critics of the film argue that its storyline is laced with ultra-nationalist political tropes and that it misrepresents history, an emerging trend in Bollywood, they say.

What is the latest Bollywood blockbuster about?

Directed by Aditya Dhar, the film dramatises a covert chapter from the annals of Indian intelligence. The narrative centres on a high-stakes, cross-border mission carried out by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), and focuses on one operative who conducts operations on enemy soil to neutralise threats to Indian national security.

The film features a heavyweight ensemble cast led by Singh, who plays the gritty field agent tasked with dismantling a “terror” network from the inside. He is pitted against a formidable antagonist played by Sanjay Dutt, representing the Pakistani establishment, and gangsters such as one portrayed by Akshaye Khanna, while actors including R Madhavan portray key intelligence officers and strategists who orchestrate complex geopolitical manoeuvering from New Delhi.

Structurally, the screenplay follows a classic cat-and-mouse trajectory.

Beneath its high-octane set pieces, the film has sparked an angry debate among critics and audiences over the interpretation of historical events and some key figures.

Why is the film so controversial in Pakistan?

Despite the longstanding geopolitical tensions between the two countries, India’s Bollywood films remain popular in Pakistan.

Depicting Pakistan as the ultimate enemy of India has been a popular theme retold for years, in different ways, especially in Bollywood’s spy thrillers, however. In this case, the portrayal of Pakistan’s major coastal city, Karachi, and particularly one of its oldest and most densely populated neighbourhoods, Lyari, has drawn strong criticism.

“The representation in the film is completely based on fantasy. It doesn’t look like Karachi. 
It does not represent the city accurately at all,” Nida Kirmani, an associate professor of sociology at Lahore University of Management Sciences, told Al Jazeera.

Kirmani, who has produced a documentary on the impact of gang violence in Lyari of her own, said that like other megacities in the world, “Karachi had periods of violence that have been particularly intense.”

However, “reducing the city to violence is one of the major problems in the film, along with the fact the film gets everything about Karachi – from its infrastructure, culture, and language – wrong”, she added.

Meanwhile, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has taken legal action in a Karachi court alleging the unauthorised use of images of the late former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007, and protesting against the film’s portrayal of the party’s leaders as supporters of “terrorists”.

Critics, including Kirmani, say the film also bizarrely casts gangs from Lyari into geopolitical tensions with India, when they have only ever operated locally.

Kirmani said the makers of the movie have cherry-picked historical figures and used them completely out of context, “trying to frame them within this very Indian nationalistic narrative”.

Mayank Shekhar, a film critic based in Mumbai, pointed out that the film “has been performed, written, directed by those who haven’t ever stepped foot in Karachi, and perhaps never will”.

“So, never mind this dust bowl for a city that, by and large, seems wholly bereft of a single modern building, and looks mostly bombed-out, between multiple ghettos,” Shekhar said.

He added that this is also in line with how Hollywood “shows the brown Third World in action with a certain sepia tone, like with Extraction, set in Dhaka, Bangladesh”.

How has the film been received in India?

Dhurandhar has been a huge commercial success in India and among the Indian diaspora. However, it has not escaped criticism entirely.

The family of a decorated Indian Army officer, Major Mohit Sharma, filed a petition in Delhi High Court to stop the release of the film, which, they claim, has exploited his life and work without their consent.

The makers of the film deny this and claim it is entirely a work of fiction.

Nonetheless, the film’s storyline is accompanied by real-time intercepted audio recordings of attacks on Indian soil and news footage, film critics and analysts say.

Is this an emerging pattern in Bollywood films?

Shekhar told Al Jazeera that focusing on a deliberately loud, seemingly over-the-top, hyper-masculine hero’s journey is not a new genre in Bollywood. “There’s a tendency to intellectualise the trend, as we did with the ‘angry young man’ movies of the 1970s,” he said, referring to the formative years of Bollywood.

In recent years, mainstream production houses in India have, however, favoured storylines that portray minorities in negative light and align with the policies of the Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Kirmani told Al Jazeera that this frequently means “reducing Muslims across India’s borders and within as ‘terrorists’, which further marginalises Muslims in India culturally”.

“Unfortunately, people gravitate towards these kinds of hypernationalistic narratives, and the director is cashing in on this,” she told Al Jazeera.

Modi himself lavished praise on a recent film called Article 370, for what he said was its “correct information” about the removal of the constitutional provision that granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. Critics, however, called the film “propaganda” and said the film had distorted facts.

Another Bollywood film Kerala Story released in 2023 was accused of falsifying facts. Prime Minister Modi praised the film, but critics said it tried to vilify Muslims and demonise the southern Kerala state known for its progressive politics.

In the case of Dhurandhar, some critics have faced online harassment.

One review by The Hollywood Reporter’s India YouTube channel, by critic Anupama Chopra, was taken down after outrage from fans of the film.

Went looking for Anupama Chopra’s Dhurandhar review? It’s gone. The Hollywood Reporter India quietly made the video private.

For context, The Hollywood Reporter India was launched by RPSG Lifestyle Media, part of the RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group, which also owns Saregama –…

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) December 9, 2025

India’s Film Critics Guild has condemned “coordinated abuse, personal attacks on individual critics, and organised attempts to discredit their professional integrity”, in a statement.

“More concerningly, there have been attempts to tamper with existing reviews, influence editorial positions, and persuade publications to alter or dilute their stance,” the group noted.