fighting

PARIS — We’ve long had your back, now it’s our turn. That is how the famously transactional President Trump is framing his demands that allies help him with the Iran war. He wants to call in IOUs for decades of U.S. security guarantees.

The string of refusals indicates his stock of European goodwill is low. He has put allies through the wringer since returning to the White House, bullying them over tariffs, Greenland and other issues, and disparaging the sacrifices their soldiers made alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Now he’s demanding — not just requesting — that they send warships to help the U.S. unblock the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes — essentially mop up behind the conflagration that he and Israel ignited in the Middle East.

The reply has been a “global raspberry.”

That’s how a veteran French defense analyst, François Heisbourg, described allied responses.

No close ally has come forward with immediate help. Britain is flat-out refusing to be drawn into the war. France says the fighting would have to die down first. Others are non-committal. China, which is not an ally but was also asked to help, is ignoring Trump’s call.

“This is not Europe’s war. We didn’t start the war. We were not consulted,” European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Tuesday.

Trump’s frustration with the ‘Rolls-Royce of allies’

Trump has singled out the refusal from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Keir Starmer cultivated ties with Trump and reached an early trade deal with the administration, but is now among allies who refuse to join a regional war with no clear endgame.

The U.K. “was sort of considered the Rolls-Royce of allies,” Trump said Monday, adding that he’d asked for British minesweeping ships.

“I was not happy with the U.K,” Trump said. “They should be involved enthusiastically. We’ve been protecting these countries for years.”

Starmer said Britain “will not be drawn into the wider war” and that British troops require the backing of international law and “a proper thought-through plan” — suggesting those were not in place.

He initially refused to let U.S. bombers attack Iran from British bases before accepting their use for strikes on Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe, said allies are “looking at the United States in a way that they never have before. And this is bad for the United States.”

Having previously appeased Trump, some European leaders are “starting to realize that there’s no benefit or value in using flattery,” he said.

European leaders say it’s not their war

Going to war without consulting allies was in keeping with Trump’s America-first outlook.

“My attitude is: We don’t need anybody. We’re the strongest nation in the world,” he said Monday.

But failing to get an international mandate, as the U.S. did before intervening in the 1990 Gulf War, is boomeranging.

“It is not our war; we did not start it,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said. “We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end to the conflict. Sending more warships to the region will certainly not contribute to that.”

French President Emmanuel Macron envisions possible naval escorts in the Strait of Hormuz — but only once fighting has died down.

“France didn’t choose this war. We’re not taking part,” he said.

After bruising tariff battles with Trump last year, the first months of 2026 have further strained alliances. Trump’s renewed pressure for U.S. control of Greenland, including a tariff threat against eight European nations, and his false assertion that allied troops avoided front-line fighting in the Afghanistan War, upset partners in the NATO military alliance.

“Allies, or at least the Europeans, aren’t willing to be at the beck and call of a demand from Donald Trump,” said Sylvie Bermann, a French former ambassador to China, the U.K. and Russia.

“And even in asking for a helping hand, he is doing so in a brutal manner, saying: ‘You’re useless, we’re the strongest, we don’t need you, but come,’” she said.

A dangerous mission

Retired naval officers say that unblocking the Strait of Hormuz with military escorts while the war rages and without Iran’s consent would be dangerous.

France, which has rushed its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean, is working with other countries to prepare such a mission once the air war has subsided. French military spokesman Col. Guillaume Vernet said any escorting would be conditional on talks with Iran, and Macron has publicized two calls in eight days with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

That has won points with Trump.

“On a scale of zero to 10, I’d say he’s been an eight,” Trump said Monday. “Not perfect, but it’s France. We don’t expect perfect.”

But he’s fuming at other allies.

“We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need,” Trump said Tuesday.

Trump has leverage, including in Ukraine

Allies in Europe and Asia need oil, gas and other products from the Middle East to flow again. That gives Trump some leverage.

Allies also know from experience that resisting Trump carries risks of retaliation.

“It really could be anything. Are the Europeans prepared for that?” asked Ed Arnold, a former British army officer and now a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank.

European allies need Trump’s continued blessing for U.S. weaponry, intelligence, and other support for Ukraine, as well as financial pressure on Russia. The U.S. has started to chip away at some sanctions on Moscow by temporarily allowing shipments of Russian oil to ease shortages stemming from the Iran war. Allies also want him to reengage in talks to end the war.

“That was what kept European leaders quiet for a lot of last year in the face of the rhetoric and actions,” said Amanda Sloat, a former U.S. national security adviser who now teaches at Spain’s IE University.

“It is also the thing that is making them a little bit nervous now.”

Leicester and Burrows write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from London. AP journalists Jill Lawless in London, Lorne Cook in Brussels, Suman Naishadham in Madrid, Geir Moulson and Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Simina Mistreanu in Taipei, Taiwan, and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Molineux has seen as many Premier League wins in the past five days as it had in the previous 10 months. But through its history, it can’t have seen many more dramatic than this.

Make no mistake, Wolves were well worth the three points here. At 1-1, they pushed for a winner and got their reward, albeit with a slice of luck with the deflection off Joe Gomez.

“This is Liverpool Football Club – never mind this position you’re in, any time you beat them, you’ve got to enjoy the moment,” said Edwards.

“They’re an amazing football club with an amazing manager and loads of great players. So it was a big, big night for us.”

The Wolves head coach joked afterwards that he had injured himself when sprinting down the touchline after his team’s late winner.

“What we’re trying to do is improve,” he added. “We’re trying to build some momentum. We know the position we’re in. I know I’ve lost myself in that moment there. People might think we’re bottom of the league but you saw the energy around this place. You have to enjoy it. We’re trying to turn things around.

“There is a belief that we are going in the right direction. Whatever happens until the end of that 38th game, we’ll just keep fighting.”

With victories against Aston Villa and Liverpool in their past two Premier League games, Wolves are the first bottom-placed side to beat two teams in the top five in a single season since West Brom in 2017-18, and the first to ever do so in consecutive matches.

While Liverpool are fighting for Champions League football, Wolves are fighting against the impossible and sit 11 points from safety with eight games remaining.

This result, in all likelihood, will ultimately have no impact on their future in the Premier League, but Rodrigo Gomes, the scorer of their first goal on Tuesday, is keeping the faith.

“We know we are in a tough position,” he told BBC Sport. “It’s very difficult but we need to keep believing. If it is possible, we need to keep believing.

“Now we need to work, game by game and not think ‘if we win this game or this game, we avoid relegation’. Game by game, working like this every week then maybe – we will see.”

As one Wolves fan told BBC Sport on his way out of Molineux: “It’s crazy how we are where we are in the table.”

For a side and fanbase who have endured plenty this season, this was a night they will not forget in a hurry.

And they get the opportunity to try to do it all again when Liverpool return on Friday in the FA Cup.

Across advanced and emerging economies, central bankers are confronting an increasingly assertive political class. Populist leaders and fiscally strained governments are pressing for lower interest rates, easier financing and, in some cases, greater influence over monetary authorities themselves.

The response from central banks has been firm but not without risk. In defending their independence, they risk appearing political, blurring the very boundary they are trying to protect.

The U.S.: Digging In at the Federal Reserve

In the United States, the confrontation has been direct. Jerome Powell has faced repeated criticism from President Donald Trump over interest rates, with Trump arguing that tighter policy undermines economic growth.

Rather than soften its stance, the Federal Reserve has emphasized its legal independence and data-driven approach. Powell has repeatedly stressed that decisions will be based on inflation and employment data, not political preference.

The stakes are high. With U.S. federal debt at $36 trillion and large refinancing needs ahead, pressure to keep borrowing costs low is intensifying. Any perception that the Fed is yielding to political demands could unsettle bond markets and erode confidence in its anti-inflation mandate.

Europe: Pre-Emptive Exits and Institutional Defense

In Europe, resistance has taken a subtler form. François Villeroy de Galhau is stepping down from the Bank of France months before elections that polls suggest could benefit the far right. Though officially described as a personal decision, the move is widely seen as an attempt to preserve institutional continuity before a potential political shift.

Similarly, Christine Lagarde has not ruled out the possibility of leaving the European Central Bank before completing her term, even while stating her baseline intention is to stay.

Such pre-emptive departures highlight a paradox: central banks are trying to shield themselves from politicization, yet early resignations can themselves be interpreted as political maneuvers. Critics argue this risks undermining the perception of neutrality.

European institutions are legally insulated by treaties, but they are not immune to democratic pressures particularly as high debt levels in countries such as France and Italy fuel debates over whether central banks should help finance public spending.

Japan: Market Discipline as a Shield

At the Bank of Japan, the dynamic is slightly different. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi appointed dovish economists to the board, a move seen by some as an effort to temper rate hikes.

Yet the BOJ has maintained its commitment to policy normalization. In Japan’s case, currency markets have provided reinforcement. A weakening yen during earlier periods of ultra-loose policy heightened political sensitivity to inflation risks. Market volatility effectively strengthened the central bank’s hand, illustrating how investor reactions can discipline governments as well as monetary authorities.

Why Independence Matters

The battle is about more than institutional pride. Central bank independence emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the inflationary spirals of the 1970s. Countries that subordinated monetary policy to political cycles often experienced runaway prices and capital flight.

More recent examples underscore the danger. In countries such as Turkey and Argentina, political interference in rate-setting has coincided with surging inflation and currency instability.

For advanced economies now grappling with record sovereign debt and rising defense spending, the temptation to lean on central banks is clear. Lower rates ease fiscal pressure. But if investors believe policy is being distorted for political convenience, borrowing costs may ultimately rise rather than fall.

The Blurred Line Between Mandate and Mission Creep

The past decade has complicated the picture. Massive bond-buying programs during the global financial crisis and the pandemic pulled central banks deeper into fiscal territory. In Europe and Britain, limited climate-related initiatives sparked accusations of overreach.

Critics argue that such expansions of mandate have made central banks more politically visible and therefore more vulnerable.

This creates a delicate trade-off. Remaining silent in the face of political pressure may preserve appearances but risk policy distortion. Publicly resisting may safeguard inflation credibility but invite accusations of entering the political arena.

Markets as Final Arbiter

Ultimately, financial markets may determine how much room politicians have to maneuver. Governments can pressure central banks, but they cannot easily compel investors to finance deficits at artificially low rates.

If markets sense that independence is eroding, they may demand higher yields, weaken currencies or pull capital outcomes that raise inflation and undermine growth. In that sense, investor discipline can reinforce central bank autonomy more effectively than legal protections alone.

A Costly Defense

Central bankers today face a more hostile and fragmented political landscape than their predecessors. The old assumption that technocrats could quietly manage inflation while politicians handled everything else no longer holds.

By fighting back, they defend hard-won credibility. But in doing so, they risk appearing as participants in political struggles rather than neutral arbiters of economic stability.

The challenge is no longer simply setting interest rates. It is preserving trust in institutions designed to stand above politics at a time when politics increasingly refuses to stand aside.

With information from Reuters.

Feb. 19 (UPI) — More than 1,000 Kenyans and other Africans have been deployed by Russia to fight in Ukraine after being recruited by “rogue” agencies that some accuse of human trafficking, a Kenyan intelligence report indicates.

Kenya’s National Intelligence Service on Wednesday reported the number of Kenyans deployed by the Russian military rose from more than 200 in November to more than 1,000 now.

The report indicates at least 89 of those deployed in Russia were serving on the front lines. At least one has died and others have returned to Kenya with injuries or mental trauma.

Kimani Ichung’wah, majority leader of the Kenyan Parliament, blamed a network of corrupt state officials whom he accused of cooperating with human traffickers to provide the Russian military with Kenyans to fight in Ukraine.

Staff at the Russian Embassy in Nairobi and the Kenyan Embassy in Moscow also helped Russia to recruit Kenyans, the Kenyan lawmaker said.

The Russian Embassy denied the allegation and said it never has issued visas to Kenyans to travel to Russia to participate in military operations.

Ichung’wah said many of those fighting for Russia are civilians and former police officers and military personnel ranging in age from their mid-20s to 50 and seeking overseas job opportunities, The Guardian reported.

Russia allegedly is paying them a monthly salary of about $2,700 plus housing and offering bonuses and Russian citizenship for their service.

Kenya is not the only African nation that has citizens allegedly fighting for Russia.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha in November alleged more than 1,400 Africans from 36 countries were deployed by the Russian military to fight in Ukraine.

Many of those soldiers are being held as prisoners of war in Ukraine, Sybiha said.

Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, and has resisted peace overtures despite participating in ongoing peace talks.