Explainer

Crypto markets came under pressure this week when the price of the world’s most popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, tumbled to its lowest level in more than a year.

On Thursday afternoon, the price of Bitcoin fell below $66,000 and was hovering at about $62,900 on Friday morning.

The fall in the price of the digital asset kicked off in the last weekend of January, when it fell below $80,000.

In October last year, Bitcoin hit an all-time peak of more than $127,000 before falling back to about $90,000 in December.

Following its latest tumble, Bitcoin is currently down by about 30 percent more since the start of the year.

Here’s what we know about what’s going on in the world of cryptocurrency:

Why is the price of Bitcoin falling?

Volatility in other markets is one of the main drivers.

Analysts say a sell-off of global stocks amid geopolitical uncertainty and recent volatility in the price of gold and silver are part of the reason for the drastic fall in the price of Bitcoin.

“Institutional demand has reversed materially,” CryptoQuant, an organisation which provides analysis of global markets to cryptocurrency investors, wrote in a report on Wednesday.

The report noted that US exchange-traded funds (ETFs) – a form of pooled investment – which had been buying up Bitcoin last year, are selling it this year.

Deutsche Bank analysts wrote in a note to clients this week that these ETFs “have seen billions of dollars flow out each month since the October 2025 downturn”, referring to investors in the funds cashing out of them.

Furthermore, they added that specialised US spot Bitcoin ETFs suffered outflows of more than $3bn in January this year, following outflows of about $7bn and $2bn in November and December 2025, respectively.

“This steady selling in our view signals that traditional investors are losing interest, and overall pessimism about crypto is growing,” the analysts said.

Adam Morgan McCarthy, product specialist at Kaiko, an organisation that provides crypto market data and analyses, told Al Jazeera: “The fall in Bitcoin prices has been largely tied to less interest in the markets and lower trading volumes. This leads to less liquidity, so any move higher or lower is exacerbated.”

He explained that the crypto market relies heavily on “hype-driven” cycles where people buy due to a fear of “missing out” on an opportunity.

“This hype forms the foundation of trading volumes, and that is what we mean by liquidity. Essentially, more trading volumes mean more liquidity, as it makes it easier to quickly buy and sell Bitcoin,” he said.

“Right now, that foundation is disappearing and this tends to happen during bear markets or ‘crypto winters’, making it much harder to effectively trade assets, and they become even less appealing then. So it’s quite a vicious circle that leads to these downward spirals,” he added.

A “crypto winter” is an extended period of declining or stagnant prices, something that can be driven by worsening macroeconomic conditions or tightening market regulations, among other reasons.

Volatility in gold and silver prices in the past two weeks has also dampened market sentiment, affecting the price of cryptocurrencies. Analysts say geopolitical instability and the prospects of a rising US dollar have led investors to sell precious metals, resulting in the sudden downturn.

Then, last week, prices came back sharply, with the price of gold hitting a record peak of almost $5,595 an ounce, while silver hit an all-time high of nearly $122.

But this peak did not last long, and this week, the prices of these precious commodities plunged – again – with gold falling to $4,872.83 per ounce on Thursday and silver falling to $77.36 an ounce.

Other cryptocurrencies like Ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency, have also fallen. The price of Ether has fallen by 19 percent this week, closing at $1,854 late on Thursday.

Does this mean ‘crypto-friendly’ policies in the US aren’t working?

The price of Bitcoin soared after United States President Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year, with analysts expecting he would adopt a “crypto-friendly” regulatory regime.

At a Bitcoin conference in July 2024, as part of his pre-election rally, Trump had said the US is the “crypto capital of the planet” and pledged to also create a Bitcoin “strategic reserve” if he became president.

In March 2025, on taking office, Trump announced his government would create a national strategic crypto reserve which would include five cryptocurrencies – Bitcoin and Ether as well as smaller currencies XRP, Cardano and Solana.

In July last year, Trump also announced the GENIUS Act, a new cryptocurrency legislation that would establish regulations and consumer protections for “stablecoin”, a type of cryptocurrency whose value is linked to a fixed currency or commodity.

Then, last month, the US also unveiled draft legislation that would create a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency, which, if signed into law, would clarify financial regulators’ jurisdiction over the cryptocurrency sector.

The US president has a personal interest as his family owns the cryptofirm World Liberty Financial (WLFI).

Last March, WLFI launched its own “stablecoin” – a dollar-pegged cryptocoin backed by US treasuries – called USD1.

But the president’s personal interest in cryptocurrencies and supportive policies have not shielded the digital asset from external market factors.

Have we seen ‘crypto winters’ before?

Yes.

A crypto winter was triggered after Bitcoin peaked in December 2017 and then tumbled in December 2018 due to intense regulatory crackdowns in the US, Canada and other countries, among other reasons.

Another such winter occurred in November 2022 after a peak in October 2021, due to the FTX currency exchange scandal. In November that year, crypto exchange FTX initiated US bankruptcy proceedings after a liquidity crisis prompted intervention from regulators around the world.

In a Thursday briefing note, analysts at Kaiko said the downward trend in prices “truly accelerated” after Trump appointed Kevin Warsh as the new Federal Reserve Chair.

Warsh will replace Jeremy Powell, who Trump has lambasted for not lowering interest rates.

The Kaiko briefing note stated: “Powell’s recent announcement on January 28th that interest rates would remain unchanged, combined with the appointment of the new Chairman, constituted a true turning point, acting as a catalyst for a sharp acceleration of the decline. The reaction was all the more pronounced given that the crypto market, particularly sensitive to changes in the macroeconomic regime, was already weakened,” the report said.

What will happen next?

Hougan noted that crypto winters typically last for about 13 months and assured investors that the current “winter” will not last for long.

“As a veteran of multiple crypto winters, I can tell you that the end of those crypto winters feels a lot like now: Despair, desperation, and malaise. But there is nothing about the current market pullback that’s changed anything fundamental about crypto,” he said in his report.

“I think we’re going to come roaring back sooner rather than later. Heck, it’s been winter since January 2025. Spring is surely coming soon,” he added.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has agreed to reveal the vetting process used by the ruling Labour Party to approve Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States in December 2024 after new revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files about the relationship between the diplomat and the billionaire sex offender.

For one, the latest release of files relating to the investigation of Epstein by the US Department of Justice showed that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after Epstein served a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008. But chief among the claims against Mandelson now are the suggestions he received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison by suicide in 2019 before his trial stemming from his second prosecution for sex offences, including allegations of trafficking dozens of girls, could take place.

On Thursday, Starmer apologised to victims of Epstein for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties to the disgraced financier.

“It had been publicly known for some time that Mandelson knew Epstein, but none of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said.

“I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

Who is Peter Mandelson and what is he accused of?

Since the release on Friday of the latest tranche of Epstein files, including emails between Epstein and Mandelson, UK media have widely reported that the government suspects Mandelson may have illegally shared market-sensitive information with Epstein 15 years ago.

The newly released files include more than 3 million pages of documents and more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

As a life peer, Mandelson, 72, was a member of the House of Lords before he resigned this week. He was a veteran Labour politician who served in the cabinets of Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010. After Labour swept back into power after 14 years in the opposition in 2024, he was appointed ambassador to the US, taking up his post on February 10 last year.

He resigned from the Labour Party on Sunday.

“I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this,” Mandelson said in a letter reported by British media.

“While doing this I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.”

Alleged leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson took place in 2009 when he was serving as the UK’s business secretary in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

This is not the first time that Mandelson has been embarrassed by his friendship with Epstein. On September 11, the UK fired Mandelson as ambassador to the US over emails between the two men, the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said.

On Tuesday, UK police launched a criminal investigation into Mandelson over suspected misconduct in public office linked to his relationship with Epstein.

Misconduct in public office is punishable in the UK with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Besides his sacking as ambassador, Mandelson has previously been forced to resign from ministerial posts for alleged misconduct on two occasions – in 1998 and 2001.

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

Epstein was a billionaire financier born and raised in New York who was known for socialising with celebrities and politicians.

Criminal investigations indicated he may have abused hundreds of girls over the course of his high-profile career. He was arrested in 2019 on federal criminal charges relating to alleged exploitation of underage girls dating back two decades. He died in prison before he could come to trial.

He also was previously accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in 2005 after her parents made a report to the police. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor in relation to a single victim.

He spent 13 months in prison on a work-release programme, which allowed him to leave jail to go to work during the day and return at night.

The US attorney in Manhattan also prosecuted Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell as a coconspirator in his sexual abuse scheme. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, which she received in 2022.

What do we know about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein?

When Mandelson was fired as ambassador to the US in September, the FCDO wrote: “In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

“The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”

These particular emails were obtained and published by the UK’s Sun newspaper in September. In them, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein before his sentence began.

“I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain,” Mandelson wrote. “You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

It is now clear from the latest tranche of Epstein files that Mandelson continued his friendship with Epstein for some time after the financier had been convicted of sex offences.

What do the new Epstein files reveal?

From 2003 to 2004, bank records indicated that Epstein made three payments totalling $75,000 to accounts connected to Mandelson or his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva. Mandelson has said he does not recall receiving any such funds and has pledged to examine whether the documents are genuine.

According to these documents, in 2009, Epstein sent da Silva 10,000 pounds ($13,607, or $20,419 today after inflation) to pay for an osteopathy course. This week, Mandelson told The Times of London: “In retrospect, it was clearly a lapse in our collective judgement for Reinaldo to accept this offer.”

Emails revealed in the latest tranche of files from the US Justice Department also shine a light on the close friendship between the two men.

In October 2009, Epstein wrote in an email to Mandelson: “You can marry princess beatrice, the queen would have a queen as a grandson,” referring to the daughter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince whose royal titles were stripped last year over his own links to Epstein and allegations of the sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre, who successfully sued Mountbatten-Windsor.

“does that make it incest, how exciting,” Epstein wrote.

In 2010, Lesley Groff, known to have been Epstein’s long-term executive assistant, emailed his boss: “Mandelson’s holiday plans arc still being sorted out. They hope to be in touch soon.”

In 2013, Epstein emailed Mandelson, saying he knew Mandelson was visiting St Petersburg, Russia. Mandelson described the city as “a rave”, to which Epstein asked whether “its for gays”. Mandelson responded, “Er no, tastey [sic] models and dancing.”

But the emails also suggested Mandelson passed sensitive information to the financier.

On May 9, 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost compelte [sic].” The next morning, European governments approved a 500-billion-euro bailout for banks in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Also in May 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying, “Finally got him to go today.” It is believed that Mandelson was referring to former Labour Prime Minister Brown.

Epstein replied to this email: “I have faith, the value of some chapters in your book should now increase.”

Brown announced his resignation just hours after this email exchange.

What has Starmer said?

Under mounting pressure from opposition politicians and within his own party this week, Starmer agreed to release information about the process through which Mandelson was appointed ambassador in 2024.

At a question and answer session on Wednesday in the House of Commons dominated by the Epstein revelations, Starmer admitted that he knew of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein but said Mandelson had “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador”.

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party,” Starmer said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

Starmer said he would ensure that “all of the material” is published, except for documents that compromise Britain’s national security, international relations or the police investigation into Mandelson’s activities.

On Tuesday, Starmer told his cabinet he was “appalled by the information” regarding Mandelson and was concerned more details could come to light, according to a Downing Street readout of the cabinet meeting.

Starmer also said he had ordered the civil service to conduct an “urgent” review of all of Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein while he was in government.

“The alleged passing on of emails of highly sensitive government business was disgraceful,” Starmer said, adding that he was not yet “reassured that the totality of information had yet emerged”.

How will this affect Starmer?

Members of parliament expressed their dismay and called on him to step down.

Conservative MP Luke Evans said: “At the end of the day, he [Starmer] made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process.”

Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “There is no doubt that the prime minister’s judgement is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgement in future.”

Conservative MP Graham Stuart added: “The fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan Principles before his appointment as well as doing so after it. I think that makes the prime minister’s position untenable.”

The Nolan Principles are a set of ethical standards for all public office holders in the UK.

“I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgement is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour Party,” Conservative MP Esther McVey said.

What do we know about how Mandelson was approved as US ambassador?

Facing questions from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in the House of Commons in September, Starmer maintained that “full due process was gone through” for the purposes of Mandelson’s appointment.

Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, who is said to have nicknamed him “Petie”, had been publicly known for years.

But The Times of London reported that Starmer received just a two-page vetting note from the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team about Mandelson’s appointment.

That document suggested that while Epstein was in prison in 2009, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan. The report also contained a photograph of Mandelson and Epstein together.

This indicated that by late 2024, the UK government had documentation showing Mandelson had remained close to Epstein even after his 2008 conviction.

New Delhi, India – When US President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India on Monday this week, he declared that New Delhi would pivot away from Russian energy as part of the agreement.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said, had promised to stop buying Russian oil, and instead buy crude from the United States and from Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted by US special forces in early January. Since then, the US has effectively taken control of Venezuela’s mammoth oil industry.

In return, Trump dialled down trade tariffs on Indian goods from an overall 50 percent to just 18 percent. Half of that 50 percent tariff was levied last year as punishment for India buying Russian oil, which the White House maintains is financing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

But since Monday, India has not publicly confirmed that it has committed to either ceasing its purchase of Russian oil or embracing Venezuelan crude, analysts note. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that Russia had received no indication of this from India, either.

And switching from Russian to Venezuelan oil will be far from straightforward. A cocktail of other factors – shocks to the energy market, costs, geography, and the characteristics of different kinds of oil – will complicate New Delhi’s decisions about its sourcing of oil, they say.

So, can India really dump Russian oil? And can Venezuelan crude replace it?

What is Trump’s plan?

Trump has been pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil for months. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the US and European Union placed an oil price cap on Russian crude in a bid to limit Russia’s ability to finance the war.

As a result, other countries including India began buying large quantities of cheap Russian oil. India, which before the war sourced only 2.5 percent of its oil from Russia, became the second-largest consumer of Russian oil after China. It currently sources around 30 percent of its oil from Russia.

Last year, Trump doubled trade tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 50 percent as punishment for this. Later in the year, Trump also imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies – and threatened secondary sanctions against countries and entities that trade with these firms.

Since the abduction of Maduro by US forces in early January, Trump has effectively taken over the Venezuelan oil sector, controlling sales cash flows.

Venezuela also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at 303 billion barrels, more than five times larger than those of the US, the world’s largest oil producer.

But while getting India to buy Venezuelan oil makes sense from the US’s perspective, analysts say this could be operationally messy.

How much oil does India import from Russia?

India currently imports nearly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude, according to analytics company Kpler. Under Trump’s mounting pressure, that is lower than the average 1.21 million bpd in December 2025 and more than 2 million bpd in mid-2025.

One barrel is equivalent to 159 litres (42 gallons) of crude oil. Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres (19 gallons) of petrol for a car. Oil is also refined to produce a wide variety of products, from jet fuel to household items including plastics and even lotions.

Has India stopped Russian oil purchases?

India has reduced the amount of oil it buys from Russia over the past year, but it has not stopped buying it altogether.

Under increasing pressure from Trump, last August, Indian officials called out the “hypocrisy” of the US and EU pressuring New Delhi to back off from Russian crude.

“In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,” Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said then. He added that India’s decision to import Russian oil was “meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

Despite this, Indian refiners, currently the second-largest group of buyers of Russian oil after China, are reportedly winding up their purchases after clearing current scheduled orders.

Major refiners like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) halted purchasing from Russia following the US sanctions against Russian oil producers last year.

Other players like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Reliance Industries will soon stop their purchases.

What happens if India suddenly stops buying Russian oil?

Even if India wanted to stop importing Russian oil altogether, analysts argue it would be extremely costly to do so.

In September last year, India’s oil and petroleum minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, told reporters that it would also sharply push up energy prices and fuel inflation. “The world will face serious consequences if the supplies are disrupted. The world can’t afford to keep Russia off the oil market,” Puri said.

Analysts tend to agree. “A complete cessation of Indian purchases of Russian oil would be a major disruption. An immediate halt would spike global prices and threaten India’s economic growth,” said George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris.

Russian oil would likely be diverted more heavily towards China and into “shadow” fleets of tankers that deliver sanctioned oil secretly by flying false flags and switching off location equipment, Voloshin told Al Jazeera. “Mainstream tanker demand would shift toward the Atlantic Basin, most likely increasing global freight rates as a result,” he noted.

Sumit Pokharna, vice president at Kotak Securities, noted that Indian refineries have reported robust margins in the last two years, majorly benefitting from the discounted Russian crude.

“If they move to higher-costing, like the US or Venezuela, then raw material cost would increase, and that would squeeze their margins,” he told Al Jazeera. “If it goes beyond control, they may have to pass the excess onto consumers.”

Can India stop buying Russian oil altogether?

It may not be able to. One of India’s two private refiners, Nayara Energy, is majority-Russian-owned and under heavy Western sanctions. The Russian energy firm Rosneft holds a 49.13 percent stake in the company, which operates a 400,000-barrel-per-day refinery in India’s Gujarat, PM Modi’s home state.

Nayara is the second-largest importer of Russian crude, buying about 471,000 barrels per day in January this year, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Russian supplies to India.

Its plant has relied solely on Russian crude since European Union sanctions were imposed on the company last July.

Nayara is not planning to load Russian oil in April as it shuts its refinery for more than a month for maintenance from April 10, according to Reuters.

Pokharna said the future of Nayara hangs in the balance, with the US unlikely to grant India an overt exemption for the Russia-backed company to import crude.

Can India switch to Venezuelan oil?

India has been a major consumer of Venezuelan oil in the past. At its peak, in 2019, India imported $7.2bn of oil, accounting for just under 7 percent of total imports. That stopped after the US slapped sanctions on Venezuelan oil, but some officials of the government-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are still stationed in the Latin American country.

Now, major Indian refiners have said they are open to receiving Venezuelan oil again, but only if it is a viable option.

For one thing, Venezuela is roughly twice as far from India as Russia and five times further than the Middle East, meaning much higher freight costs.

Venezuelan oil is more expensive as well. “Russian Urals [a medium-heavy crude blend] has been trading at a wide-ranging discount of about $10-20 per barrel to Brent, while Venezuelan Merey currently offers a smaller discount of around $5-8 per barrel,” Voloshin told Al Jazeera.

“Importing from Venezuela and forgoing the Russian discount would be a costly affair for India,” said Pokharna. “From transportation cost to forgoing discounts, it could cost India $6-8 more per barrel – and that is a huge increase in the importing bill.”

Overall, a complete pivot away from Russia could raise India’s import bill by $9bn to $11bn – an amount roughly equal to India’s federal health budget – per year, according to Kpler.

“Venezuelan crude must be discounted by at least $10 to $12 per barrel to be competitive,” argued Voloshin. “This deeper discount is necessary to offset the much higher freight costs, increased insurance premiums for the longer Atlantic voyage, and the somewhat higher operational expenses required to process Venezuela’s extra-heavy high-sulfur crude.”

Without deeper discounts, the longer journey and complex handling make Venezuelan oil more expensive on a delivered basis, he added.

Another major issue is that many Indian refiners simply do not have the facilities to process very heavy Venezuelan oil.

Venezuelan crude is a heavy, sour oil, thick and viscous like molasses, with a high sulphur content requiring complex, specialised refineries to process it into fuel. Only a small number of Indian refineries are equipped to handle it.

“[Venezuelan oil’s heaviness] makes it an option only for complex refineries, leaving out older and smaller refineries,” Pokharna told Al Jazeera. “The shift is operationally difficult and would require blending with more expensive light crudes.”

Then there is the question of availability. Today, Venezuela produces barely a million barrels per day when pushed to its limit. Even if all production was sent to India, it would not match the total Russian oil import.

Where else could India buy oil?

India’s Minister Puri has said that New Delhi is looking to diversify sourcing options from nearly 40 countries.

As India has reduced Russian imports, it has increased them from Middle Eastern nations and other countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Now, while Russia accounts for nearly 27 percent share in India’s oil imports, OPEC nations, led by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, contribute 53 percent.

Reeling from Trump’s trade war, India has also increased purchases of US oil. American crude imports to India rose by 92 percent from April to November in 2025 to nearly 13 million tons, compared to 7.1 million in the same period in 2024.

However, India would be competing for these supplies with the European Union, which has pledged to spend $750bn by 2028 on US energy and nuclear products.

Meanwhile, for Venezuela to return to higher production, Caracas needs political stability, changes in foreign investment and oil laws, and to clear debts. That will take time, experts say.

The tenth edition of the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup will take place in India and Sri Lanka from February 7 to March 8, 2026.

Twenty teams will be competing in 55 matches for the chance to win cricket’s most prestigious T20 trophy.

But cricket is a game with a list of commonly used terms and phrases that might confuse those new to it.

In this illustrated guide, Al Jazeera breaks down cricket lingo and helps you understand the game beloved by nearly two billion people.

What is the aim of the game?

Cricket is a bat-and-ball sport played between two teams consisting of 11 players each.

The game is divided into two parts, known as innings.

In the first innings, following a coin toss, the first team bats while the other team bowls and fields.

The batting team should try to score the highest number of runs in the allotted time, while the bowling team has to try to prevent them from scoring.

The bowling team has dedicated bowlers, while the remaining players, spread across the ground, try to prevent the batters from scoring runs as well as catch the ball to get the batters out.

In the second innings, the bowling team now gets a turn to bat and try to score more runs than their opposition.

The team with the highest number of runs at the end of the day wins the game.

What does T20 mean?

There are three different formats in cricket, each with its own duration and rules.

Each format has its own defined set of “overs”.

An “over” consists of six deliveries by the bowler.

In a T20 match, which usually lasts three to four hours, each team is given 20 overs (120 balls) to score the most number of runs. This format of the game is designed to be shorter and faster-paced, which provides more excitement for spectators.

A One Day International (ODI) match typically lasts about seven to eight hours. Each team is given a total of 300 deliveries, which are divided into 50 overs, to score the most number of runs.

A Test match is the longest and oldest format of the game, played over a maximum of five days. It is considered a test of endurance and skill. Each day has a minimum of 90 overs. Both teams have two innings each.

The cricket field and pitch

Cricket is played in a large, oval-shaped field, typically about 150 metres (164 yards) in diameter at its widest point and surrounded by a boundary rope.

In the centre of the field is the pitch, a rectangular area about 20 metres long (22 yards) and 3 metres (3.3 yards) wide, where most of the action takes place.

At each end of the pitch are three wooden sticks known as wickets or stumps, with two bails atop them.

The batter stands in front of these wickets inside a specified area known as the batting crease. It is from there that he or she will strike the incoming ball from the bowler.

During the match, the batting team will actually have two players on the field, one on either end of the pitch, to take turns in hitting the ball.

The bowling team, meanwhile, will have all 11 players scattered throughout the field to minimise the number of runs their opponents can score.

Some of the most common positions are shown below:

How are runs scored?

The aim for the batters is to score as many runs as possible by hitting the ball in the gaps between the fielders or over the boundary rope.

To score a run, the batter needs to hit the ball and then, together with their batting partner, run to the opposite side of the pitch before the fielder returns the ball; otherwise, they can be run out.

A single run is scored when both batters safely complete one run, a two-run when they complete two runs, and so on.

If a batter hits the ball along the ground and it reaches the boundary rope, then four runs are awarded.

To signal that four runs have been scored, the umpire moves his right hand from one side to the other, repeatedly waving it back and forth horizontally.

The maximum, six runs, is scored when the batter hits the ball directly over the boundary before it bounces. This shot is the most rewarding but also among the riskiest, due to the chances of getting bowled or caught.

To signal a six, the umpire will raise both hands above his head, which the fans will often imitate.

How does a player get ‘out’?

There are several ways to get a batter out, with each out referred to as “losing a wicket”.

Since cricket is played with pairs of batsmen, when 10 players from the batting team are dismissed, their innings concludes, and the sum of the runs they scored sets the target score for the bowling team.

The most common ways of getting a player out include:

Bowled: This happens if the batter misses the ball, and it goes on to hit the wicket.

Caught: A batter is caught out when they hit the ball and a fielder catches it before it touches the ground.

Run-Out: A run-out happens when the fielding team throws the ball at the wicket while the batter is trying to score a run and before they can reach the opposite side of the pitch.

LBW (Leg Before Wicket): This decision depends on various factors, but in a nutshell, a batter can be given out LBW if the ball hits their legs while they are standing in front of the wicket, thus preventing the wicket from being hit.

To signal an “out”, the umpire who is standing in the middle of the field will raise his index finger to signify that a batter has been dismissed.

This gesture is often referred to as the umpire having “raised the finger” or “given the finger”.

How do you read the score?

To follow the score in cricket, you need to look at three numbers.

The first is the number of runs a team has scored – the higher the number, the better.

The second indicates the number of “outs” or “wickets”. Once 10 players are out, their batting innings come to an end.

The third is the number of overs that have been bowled.

Combined, a score may look like this: 109-5 (10 overs)

This means that 109 runs have been scored, 5 players are out, and 10 overs have been completed.

Typically, teams make anywhere from 100 to 250 runs during a T20 match. A score of 100 is considered low to defend, while 250 runs is usually very strong.

The highest score in international T20 cricket was between Zimbabwe and The Gambia in 2024.

Zimbabwe batted first and scored a huge 344-4 in their 20 overs. In response, The Gambia only managed 54 runs before losing all 10 of their wickets.

Zimbabwe won by 290 runs.

Donald Trump is expected to meet Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Tuesday after a year of exchanging insults and threats over the United States president’s aggressive foreign policies in Latin America, and Bogota’s war on drugs.

Petro’s visit to the White House in Washington, DC, on February 3 comes just one month after the US abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro in a lightning armed assault on Caracas.

The Colombian leader will likely be seeking to address diplomatic tensions with the US, which have been in disarray since Trump began his second term last year.

The 65-year-old left-wing Petro has been a vocal critic of Trump’s foreign policies and recent military operations in the Caribbean Sea as well as of Israel’s war on Gaza – a thorny topic for the US president.

Last month, tempers rose again when Trump threatened to target Colombia militarily for allegedly flooding the US with illegal drugs.

Have relations between the two always been frosty?

No. After Colombia gained independence from Spain in 1819, the US was one of the first countries to recognise Colombia’s independence in 1822. It established a diplomatic mission there in 1823.

A year later, the two nations signed a string of treaties focusing on peace, navigation and commerce, according to US government archives.

Since then, the two nations have continued to cooperate on security and economic matters. But these efforts have been interrupted at times, such as during the Cold War, by geopolitics and in relation to Colombia’s war on the drug trade.

Here is a timeline of key issues and events.

Business interests threatened

In 1928, US businesses were operating in Colombia. But their interests were threatened when Colombian employees of America’s United Fruit Company protested, demanding better working conditions. Political parties in Colombia had also begun questioning Washington’s expanding role in Latin America following these protests.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), this was also the period of the “Banana Wars” when Washington was busy toppling regimes in South America to shore up its business interests in the region.

A string of US military interventions took place from 1898 to 1934 as Washington sought to expand its economic interests in the region until President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the “Good Neighbor Policy”, pledging not to invade or occupy Latin American countries or interfere in their internal affairs.

Emergence of FARC

Security relations between the US and Colombia deepened during the second world war. In 1943, Colombia offered its territory for US air and naval bases while Washington provided training for Colombian soldiers.

According to the CFR, the US boosted military support for Colombia during its deadly conflict with armed rebel groups, which lasted from 1948 until the mid-1950s and killed more than 200,000 people. During this conflict, many independent armed groups emerged in the countryside, and the US implemented a strategy known as Plan Lazo to improve civilian defence networks.

In response, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was formed by rebel leaders and engaged in widespread violence and kidnappings, according to the CFR.

FARC claimed to be inspired by communist values and, in the late 1940s, controlled about 40 percent of the country, according to the CFR. Washington labelled it as a “terrorist” organisation and focused efforts towards destabilising the group.

FARC eventually signed a peace agreement with the Colombian government in 2016. In 2021, the group was delisted from Washington’s foreign terrorist organisations’ list.

War on drugs

As FARC was rising in Colombia, the drug trade was also gathering momentum. Groups such as the Medellin Cartel and Cali Cartel emerged in the country, and trafficked marijuana and cocaine to the US on a regular basis.

Faced with a rising number of drug-related deaths, the US government spent more than $10bn on counter-narcotics and security efforts to aid Colombia’s government between 1999 and 2018, according to a US Government Accountability Office report.

Former US presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W Bush, also launched counter-narcotic initiatives to disrupt drug trafficking, destroy coca crops, and support alternative livelihoods for coca farmers, in a bid to quash the cartels.

Trump’s first term as president, beginning in 2017, was marked by renewed counter-narcotic initiatives but he also threatened to decertify Colombia as a cooperative country if it did not take action against its drug cartels.

Tensions between the US and Colombia calmed under former US President Joe Biden, who focused on improving diplomatic ties by designating Colombia as a major non-NATO ally in 2022.

Today, cartels function in a decentralised manner and some have also been designated as terrorist organisations by the US. In December 2025, the Trump administration designated the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest illegal arms group, which is also involved in drug trafficking, as a terrorist organisation.

Trump’s second term

In 2022, Petro was elected as Colombia’s first left-wing president and took up office in the presidential palace with promises to lead Colombia in a more equitable, eco-friendly direction.

But tensions with the US flared again when Trump arrived in the White House for his second term in January 2025.

Since then, Petro has been a vocal critic of Trump’s policies, particularly those relating to Latin America.

Last year, the Trump administration began a series of military strikes on Venezuelan boats, which it alleged were carrying drugs, in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has struck dozens of boats, but has not provided any evidence that any were trafficking drugs. Petro called the aggression an “act of tyranny”.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, Petro said that “criminal proceedings must be opened against those officials, who are from the US, even if it includes the highest-ranking official who gave the order: President Trump”, in relation to the boat strikes.

At the UNGA, Petro also criticised US ally Israel’s war on Gaza and called on US troops to “disobey Trump’s orders” and “obey the order of humanity”.

Washington revoked Petro’s US visa after he spoke at a pro-Palestine march outside the UNGA in New York.

Weeks later, the Trump administration also imposed sanctions on the Colombian president, who is set to leave office following a presidential election in May.

In a post on his Truth Social platform in October, Trump said Petro “does nothing” to stop the drug production [in his country], and so the US would no longer offer “payment or subsidies” to Colombia.

Shortly after carrying out the abduction of Venezuela’s Maduro, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that both Venezuela and Colombia were “very sick” and that the government in Bogota was run by “a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States”. “And he’s not going to be doing it very long. Let me tell you,” Trump added.

When asked if he meant a US operation would take place against Colombia, Trump said, “Sounds good to me.”

In response, Petro promised to defend his country, saying that he would “take up arms” for his homeland.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on January 9, however, Petro said his government is seeking to maintain cooperation on combating narcotics with Washington, striking a softer tone following days of escalating rhetoric.

Oil becomes more meaningful when you turn it into fuel.

A barrel contains 159 litres of crude oil, or 42 gallons.

To use this oil, it must be refined. The refining process produces various products, including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and numerous household items, such as cleaning products, plastics and even lotions.

Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres, or 19.35 gallons, of petrol to power cars and trucks.

A pick-up truck that can drive 24 miles on 1 gallon of petrol, or 100km on 10 litres, can travel about 730km, or 450 miles, from one barrel of oil.

Put another way, one barrel of crude oil can fuel that pick-up on a trip from New York City to Cleveland, Ohio.

Now let’s scale that up to US national consumption. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the US has about 285 million motor vehicles and consumes nearly 9 million barrels of petrol every day.

If all of Venezuela’s crude oil were refined into petrol, it could supply US vehicles for roughly 40 years at today’s consumption rate.

New Delhi, India – The latest release of documents related to the US Justice Department investigation into the crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has set off political infernos around the globe for featuring the names of world leaders.

The tranche of files, which includes more than three million pages of documents, was released on Friday. This is the largest release since US President Donald Trump’s administration passed a law last year to force the release of the documents.

Epstein was convicted in 2008 of sex offences but avoided federal charges – which could have seen him face life in prison – by doing a deal with prosecutors. Instead, he received an 18-month prison sentence, which allowed him to go on “work release” to his office for 12 hours a day, six days a week. He was released on probation after 13 months.

In 2019, he was arrested again on charges including the sex trafficking of minors. But he died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 before his trial could commence.

With this latest disclosure of documents and emails linked to the cases against him, yet more has been revealed about the disgraced financier’s sexual abuse of young girls and his interactions with wealthy and powerful figures from the United Kingdom, Australia, Norway, Slovakia and India.

Simply being named in Epstein documents or emails does not mean a person is guilty of criminal wrongdoing, and, so far, no charges have been brought against individuals named in connection with the sex offender.

However, the new documents show communications between high-profile figures in the US, including Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and business tycoons such as Bill Gates and Elon Musk.

Here is what we know about some of the powerful men (and one woman) from other countries who have featured in these documents.

Narendra Modi, Indian prime minister

Documents released on Friday reveal conversations between Anil Ambani, the billionaire chairman of Reliance Group who is close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Epstein. All the conversations took place in the years following Epstein’s first conviction for sex offences in 2008.

The two emailed each other about a range of issues, from sizing up incoming US ambassadors to India to setting up meetings for Modi with top US officials.

Ambani is the elder brother of India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, who is also close to PM Modi.

On March 16, 2017, two months after Trump was sworn in for his first term as president of the US, Ambani sent an iMessage to Epstein, saying “Leadership” was asking for his help to connect with senior figures in Trump’s circle, including Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.

Ambani also asked for advice from Epstein about a possible visit by Modi to meet Trump “in may (sic)”, before setting up a call in the messages.

In another iMessage exchange two weeks later, on March 29, Epstein wrote to Ambani: “Discussions re israel strategy dominating modi dates (sic).” Two days later, Ambani informed Epstein that Modi would visit Israel in July and asked the disgraced financier: “who do u know fir track 2”.

On June 26, Modi met Trump in Washington on his first visit since Trump became president.

Then, on July 6, 2017, Modi became the first-ever Indian prime minister to visit Israel. He snubbed the Palestinian Authority, prompting condemnation from Palestinian officials.

That year, New Delhi became the largest buyer of Israeli weapons, amounting to $715m worth of purchases. The defence partnership between the two countries has since continued despite Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

This marked a sharp change from India’s history of advocating for the Palestinian cause. It only opened up formal diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992. Before that, Indian citizens had been barred by India from travelling to Israel since the country’s creation in 1948.

After Modi’s visit on July 6, Epstein emailed an unidentified individual he referred to as “Jabor Y”, saying: “The Indian Prime minister modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED. !”

Ambani Reliance Defence Ltd also entered a joint venture with an Israeli state defence group last year in a deal valued at $10bn over a decade.

Shortly after Modi’s visit to Israel, Larry Summers, former Harvard University president and former secretary of the US Treasury, asked Epstein if he still thought Trump was a better president than rival candidate Hillary Clinton would have been. Epstein responded affirmatively, stating, “yes, defintley India israel. for example great and all his doing (sic).”

In another conversation revealed in the latest document drop, Epstein offered to arrange a meeting between Modi and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon just hours after Modi had won a thumping majority in the Indian national election in 2019.

In an iMessage to Bannon on May 19, 2019, Epstein wrote, “modi sending someone to see me on thurs,” referring to Ambani.

That Thursday, May 23, Epstein met Ambani in New York and his calendar for that day shows no other meeting scheduled.

After the meeting with Ambani, Epstein wrote to Bannon: “really interesting modi meeting. He won [the 2019 parliamentary elections] with HUGE mandate. His guy said that no one in wash speaks to him however his main enemy is CHINA!   And their proxy in the region pakistan. They will host the g20 in 22.. Totally buys into your vision.”

Epstein then messaged Ambani: “I think mr modi might enjoy meeting steve bannon, you all share the china problem.” And Ambani wrote back: “sure.”

Epstein then wrote back to Bannon: “modi on board.”

It is not immediately clear if Ambani was authorised to approve such decisions on behalf of the Indian government. There is no public record either of a meeting between Bannon and Indian officials that summer.

Hardeep Singh Puri, Indian politician

Another major Indian name featured in the Epstein files is Hardeep Singh Puri, who retired from the Indian Foreign Service to join Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014.

In the documents are email exchanges between Puri and Epstein that began in June 2014, with the sex offender writing to Puri about Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and arranging a visit by Hoffman to India.

Following an exchange of emails, Puri wrote a detailed pitch for investment opportunities in India to Epstein and Hoffman, laying out economic plans in India under the newly elected Modi government, and urging Hoffman to visit. Documents also show Puri met Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse on at least three occasions: February 4, 2015; January 6, 2016; and May 19, 2017.

Puri told Indian media on Sunday that his visits and interactions with Epstein were strictly business-related.

In December 2014, Puri wrote to Epstein again by email. “Please let me know when you are back from your exotic island,” he wrote, asking to set up a meeting in which Puri could give Epstein some books to “excite an interest in India”.

How has the Indian government responded?

India has dismissed the references to Modi in the Epstein files.

“Beyond the fact of the prime minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt,” External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Saturday.

However, the opposition, led by the Congress Party, has demanded answers about the latest disclosures – particularly those relating to Israel relations.

The Congress Party’s general secretary in charge of organisation, KC Venugopal, wrote in a post on X: “The reports of the new batch of Epstein Files are a huge wake-up call about the kind of monsters who have access to PM Modi, and how susceptible he is to foreign manipulation. The Congress demands that the Prime Minister personally come clean on these disturbing disclosures that raise serious questions.”

Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister

Australian diplomat Kevin Rudd, who served as the country’s prime minister from 2007 to 2010 and again in 2013, has also been named in the Epstein files.

Rudd’s name appeared on Epstein’s daily meeting schedule for June 8, 2014, at 4:30pm. On that day, Epstein flew to New York from his private island, Little Saint James in the US Virgin Islands, for several meetings, including with Rudd.

Rudd, who is currently serving as Australia’s ambassador to the US, claims he did not visit Epstein and denies any friendship with him.

But the newly released files show that two days before the scheduled appointment, Epstein emailed his assistant, Lesley Groff, on June 6, 2014 to ask for non-vegetarian food to be made available at the upcoming Sunday lunch “as now kevin rudd is also coming”. Rudd was not in government at the time.

Just seconds later, Epstein follows up in another email to Groff: “Kevin Rudd might also stop by former prime minister austrailia [sic].”

Peter Mandelson, UK politician

The name of Peter Mandelson, a former UK cabinet minister and life peer, had appeared in tranches of Epstein files previously made public. But he resigned from his membership of the UK’s ruling Labour Party on Sunday after yet more links to Epstein surfaced in the latest dump.

Mandelson was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to the US last year over his connections to Epstein.

The latest documents reveal that Epstein made $75,000 in payments to Mandelson in three separate transactions in 2003 and 2004.

In his resignation letter to Labour’s general secretary, Mandelson wrote: “I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this.”

He said he had “no recollection” of the payments, however.

The latest documents also show that Mandelson discussed with Epstein by email a campaign against Rudd’s proposed mining tax, which would have taxed “super profits” reaped by mining companies at 40 percent, while Rudd was still prime minister.

Mette-Marit, Norway’s crown princess

The latest disclosures from the US Justice Department have embroiled Norway’s crown princess, Mette-Marit, in the Epstein scandal, as they reveal her years of extensive contact with the sex offender.

Mette-Marit, who is married to Crown Prince Haakon, the heir apparent to the Norwegian throne, appears nearly 1,000 times in the Epstein files, with scores of emails sent between the two.

In the emails, Mette-Marit told Epstein, “you tickle my brain”, and called him “soft hearted” and “such a sweetheart”. In another, she thanked Epstein for flowers he had sent when she was feeling unwell, signing off with “Love, Mm”.

In 2012, Mette-Marit told Epstein he was “very charming” and asked if it was “inappropriate for a mother to suggest two naked women carrying a surfboard for my 15 yr old sons wallpaper?”

The revelations come at a tricky time for Norway’s royal family, with Mette-Marit’s son, Marius Borg Hoiby – who was born before her marriage to Crown Prince Haakon – set to go on trial for rape later this week. Hoiby has been accused of 38 crimes, including the rapes of four women as well as assault and drug offences.

Miroslav Lajcak, Slovakian national security adviser

The new tranche of Espstein files has also prompted the resignation of Slovakia’s national security adviser, Miroslav Lajcak.

Photos and emails released with the documents reveal that he met with Epstein several years after the sex offender was released from jail and exchanged text messages about women in 2018 during his second spell as foreign minister.

On Sunday, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico accepted Lajcak’s resignation, and wrote on Facebook that the government was losing “an incredible source of experience and knowledge in foreign policy”, adding that the former minister had “categorically denied and rejected” the allegations made against him.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that he expects the United States to respect the country’s sovereignty after reports that Alberta separatists have met several times with officials of the Donald Trump administration.

The Financial Times reported that US State Department officials held meetings with the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), a group calling for a referendum on whether the energy-rich western province should leave Canada.

Speaking in Ottawa on Thursday, Carney said he has been clear with US President Donald Trump on the issue.

“I expect the US administration to respect Canadian sovereignty,” he said, adding that after raising the issue, he wanted the two sides to focus on areas where they can work together.

Carney is himself an Albertan, raised in Edmonton, the provincial capital. The province has had an independence movement for decades.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada the “51st state” of the American Union.

Here is what we know:

Leaders of the APP have reportedly met with US State Department officials in Washington at least three times since last April. Trump entered office for a second time in January.

These meetings have prompted concern in Ottawa regarding potential US interference in Canadian domestic politics.

This follows comments by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week, who described Alberta as “a natural partner for the US” and praised the province’s resource wealth and “independent” character during an interview with the right-wing broadcaster Real America’s Voice.

“Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they [the Canadian government] won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific,” he said. “I think we should let them come down into the US,” Bessent said during an interview with the right-wing broadcaster.

“There’s a rumour they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”

Asked if he knew something about the separation effort, Bessent said, “People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what the US has got.”

After Bessent’s comments, Jeffrey Rath, a leader of the APP, said that the group was seeking another meeting with US officials next month, where they are expected to ask about a possible $500bn credit line to support Alberta if a future independence referendum – which has not yet been called – were to be held.

The developments come at a sensitive moment in US-Canada relations, with trade tensions still simmering and after a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos where Carney warned that Washington was contributing to a “rupture” in the global order.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada part of the American Union. His expansionist ambitions have been further underscored by his recent push to acquire Greenland from Denmark, which, like Canada, is a NATO ally. At the start of the year, the US military also abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and has since attempted to take control of the South American nation’s massive oil industry.

How have Canadian leaders reacted to the reports?

Speaking on Thursday, British Columbia Premier David Eby described the reported behind-the-scenes meetings as “treason”.

“To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there’s an old-fashioned word for that – and that word is treason,” Eby told reporters.

“It is completely inappropriate to seek to weaken Canada, to go and ask for assistance, to break up this country from a foreign power and – with respect – a president who has not been particularly respectful of Canada’s sovereignty.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford appealed for Canadian unity on Thursday morning.

“You know, we have a referendum going on out in Alberta. The separatists in Quebec say they’re gonna call a referendum if they get elected. Like, folks, we need to stick together. It’s Team Canada. It’s nothing else,” he said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, however, said she won’t demonise the Albertans who are open to separation because of “legitimate grievances” with Ottawa and said she did not want to “demonise or marginalise a million of my fellow citizens”.

Smith has long been pro-Trump and visited the US president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in January 2025, at a time when most other Canadian leaders were joining hands to criticise his demand that the country become a part of the United States.

What do we know about a potential referendum in Alberta?

Anger towards Ottawa has been building in Alberta for decades, rooted largely in disputes over how the federal government manages the province’s vast oil and gas resources.

Many Albertans feel federal policies – particularly environmental regulations, carbon pricing and pipeline approvals – limit Alberta’s ability to develop and export its energy.

As a landlocked province, Alberta depends on pipelines and cooperation with other provinces to access global markets, making those federal decisions especially contentious.

Many Albertans believe the province generates significant wealth while having limited influence over national decision-making. In 2024-25, for instance, it contributed 15 percent of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), despite being home to only 12 percent of the population.

Alberta consistently produces more than 80 percent of Canada’s oil and 60 percent of the country’s natural gas.

Yet, many Albertans say that the federal government does not give the province its fair share from taxes collected. Canada has a system of equalisation payments, under which the federal government pays poorer provinces extra funds to ensure that they can maintain social services. While Quebec and Manitoba receive the highest payments, Alberta – as well as British Columbia and Saskatchewan – at the moment receive no equalisation payments.

Carney recently signed an agreement with Alberta, opening the door for an oil pipeline to the Pacific, though it is opposed by Eby and faces significant hurdles.

Recent Ipsos polling suggests that about three in 10 Albertans would support starting the process of leaving Canada.

But the survey also found that roughly one in five of those supporters viewed a vote to leave as largely symbolic – a way to signal political dissatisfaction rather than a firm desire for independence.

A referendum on Alberta independence could happen later this year if a group of residents can collect the nearly 178,000 signatures required to force a vote on the issue. But even if the referendum passes, Alberta would not be immediately independent.

Under the Clarity Act, the federal government would first have to determine whether the referendum question was clear and whether the result represented a clear majority. Only then would negotiations begin, covering issues such as the division of assets and debt, borders and Indigenous rights.

What is the Alberta Prosperity Project and what does it want?

The APP is a pro-independence group that is campaigning for a referendum on Alberta leaving Canada.

It argues that the province would be better off controlling its own resources, taxes and policies, and has been working to gather signatures under Alberta’s citizen-initiative rules to trigger a vote.

While it describes itself as an educational, non-partisan project, the group has drawn controversy over its claims about the economic viability of an independent Alberta.

On its website, the APP says, “Alberta sovereignty, in the context of its relationship with Canada, refers to the aspiration for Alberta to gain greater autonomy and control over provincial areas of responsibility.”

“However, a combination of economic, political, cultural and human rights factors … has resulted in many Albertans defining ‘Alberta sovereignty’ to mean Alberta becoming an independent country and taking control of all matters that fall within the jurisdiction of an independent nation,” it adds.

What else has Washington said?

White House and State Department officials told the FT that administration officials regularly meet with civil society groups and that no support or commitments were conveyed.

A  report published by Canada’s public broadcaster CBC earlier this year quoted US national security analyst Brandon Weichert as saying that Trump’s talk of Canada becoming the “51st state” was, in reality, aimed at Alberta.

Appearing on a show hosted by former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, Weichert suggested that a vote for independence in Alberta would prompt the US to recognise the province and guide it towards becoming a US state.

Has the Trump administration tried this elsewhere?

Yes, in Greenland.

As with Canada, Trump has repeatedly called for Greenland to be incorporated into the US. His threats to annex Greenland have prompted strong opposition from the government of the Arctic island, Denmark — which governs Greenland — and Europe.

But as with Alberta, Trump’s administration has also attempted to test separatist sentiment. In August 2025, the Danish government summoned the top US diplomat in Copenhagen after Denmark’s national broadcaster reported that three Trump allies had begun pulling together a list of Greenlanders supportive of the US president’s efforts to get it to join the United States.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s tax and spending pledges in advance of snap elections next month have sent jitters through global markets.

Japanese government bonds and the yen have been on a rollercoaster since Takaichi unveiled plans to pause the country’s consumption tax if her Liberal Democratic Party wins the February 8 vote.

The market turmoil reflects concerns about the long-term sustainability of Japan’s debt levels, which are the highest among advanced economies.

The volatility has extended beyond Japan, highlighting broader fiscal sustainability worries in an era in which the United States and other major economies are running huge deficits.

What has Takaichi promised on the economy?

Takaichi said last week that she would suspend the country’s 8 percent consumption tax on food and non-alcoholic beverages for two years if her government is returned to power, following her dissolution of the House of Representatives.

Based on Japanese government data, Takaichi’s plan would result in an estimated revenue shortfall of 5 trillion yen ($31.71bn) each year.

Takaichi, a proponent of predecessor Shinzo Abe’s agenda of high public spending and ultra-loose monetary policy, said the shortfall could be made up by reviewing existing expenditures and tax breaks, but did not provide specific details.

Takaichi’s tax pledge comes after her Cabinet in November approved Japan’s largest stimulus since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The package, worth 21.3 trillion yen ($137bn), included one-time cash handouts of 20,000 yen per child for families, subsidies for utility bills amounting to about 7,000 yen per household over a three-month period, and food coupons worth 3,000 yen per person.

Why have Takaichi’s pledges unnerved markets?

Japan’s long-term government bond yields soared following Takaichi’s announcement.

Yields on 40-year bonds rose above 4 percent on Tuesday, the highest on record, as investors exited from Japanese government debt en masse.

Bond markets, through which governments borrow money from investors in exchange for paying out a fixed rate of interest, are closely watched as a gauge of the health of countries’ balance sheets.

While typically offering lower returns than stocks, government bonds are seen as low-risk investments as they have the backing of the state, making them attractive to investors seeking safe places to park their money.

As confidence in a government’s ability to repay its debts declines, bond yields rise as investors seek higher interest payments for holding riskier debt.

“When Prime Minister Takaichi announced a planned reduction in consumption taxes, this made existing bond-holders of Japan’s debt uneasy, requiring a higher compensation for the risk they bear,” Anastassia Fedyk, an assistant professor of finance at the Haas School of Business of the University of California, Berkeley, told Al Jazeera.

“As a result, bond prices dropped and yields rose. And yes, this is a general pattern that applies to other countries, too, though Japan has an especially high level of debt, making its position more vulnerable.”

Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio already exceeds 230 percent, following decades of deficit spending by governments aiming to reverse the country’s long-term economic stagnation.

The East Asian country’s debt burden stands far above that of peers such as the US, UK and France, whose debt-to-GDP ratios are about 125 percent, 115 percent and 101 percent, respectively.

At the same time, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has been scaling back bond purchases as part of its move away from decades of ultra-low interest rates, limiting its options for interventions to bring yields down.

“Bond investors reacted because her headline package looks like large, near-term fiscal loosening at exactly the moment the BOJ is trying to normalise policy,” Sayuri Shirai, a professor of economics at Keio University in Tokyo, told Al Jazeera.

How does all this affect the rest of the world?

The sell-off in Japanese bonds reverberated through markets overseas, with yields on 30-year US Treasuries rising to their highest level since September.

As Japanese bond yields rise, local investors are able to earn higher interest payments at home.

That can incentivise investors to offload other bonds, such as US Treasuries.

As of November, Japanese investors held $1.2 trillion in US Treasuries, more than any other foreign group of buyers.

In an interview with Fox News last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed concern about the impact of Japan’s bond market on US Treasury prices and said he anticipated that his Japanese counterparts would “begin saying the things that will calm the market down.”

Japan’s long-term bond yields fell on Monday amid the expectations that Japanese and US authorities would step in to prop up the yen.

On Friday, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had inquired about the cost of exchanging the Japanese currency for US dollars.

“Japan matters globally through flows. If Japanese government bond yields rise, Japanese investors can earn more at home, potentially reducing demand for foreign bonds; that can nudge global yields and risk pricing,” Shirai said.

“This is why global-market pieces have framed Japan’s bond move as a wider rates story.”

Higher bond yields in Japan, the US and elsewhere raise the cost of borrowing and servicing the national debt.

In a worst-case scenario, a sharp escalation in interest rates can lead to a country defaulting on its debts.

Masahiko Loo, a fixed income strategist at State Street Investment Management in Tokyo, said that the reaction of international investors to Takaichi’s plans reflects growing sensitivity to fiscal credibility in highly indebted economies.

“Yes, Japan may be the spark, but the warning applies equally to the US and others with large structural deficits,” Loo told Al Jazeera.

Is Japan on the verge of a financial crisis?

Probably not.

While Japan is more indebted than its peers, its fiscal position is more sustainable than it might appear due to factors specific to the country – at least in the short to medium term – according to economists.

The vast majority of Japan’s debt is held by local institutions and denominated in yen, reducing the likelihood of a panic induced by foreign investors, while interest rates are far lower than in other economies.

“The debt situation is more manageable than a lot of people think,” Thomas Mathews, head of markets for Asia Pacific at Capital Economics, told Al Jazeera.

“Net debt-to-GDP is on a downward trajectory, and Japan’s budget deficit isn’t all that big by global standards.”

Loo of State Street Investment Management said that the turmoil surrounding Japan had more to do with a “communication gap around fiscal sustainability and policy coordination” than the country’s solvency.

“That said, markets are likely to continue testing the feasibility of the agenda, as even fiscally sanguine countries have, at times, been disciplined by market forces,” Loo said.