military

The Syrian army has declared a rural area east of Aleppo a “closed military zone” amid fears of renewed clashes with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. A military source said the SDF destroyed three bridges connecting areas it controls with government-controlled areas. Al Jazeera’s Zein Basravi has the latest from Aleppo.

Kampala, Uganda – When Bobi Wine, a singer-turned-politician whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, launched his campaign to become Uganda’s next president in October, he appeared in tailored suits, greeting crowds with a familiar smile.

The mood, at least at first, felt cautiously hopeful.

But by December, that image had disappeared.

As campaigning comes to an end on Tuesday, Bobi Wine, who is the main opposition candidate looking to unseat long-serving President Yoweri Museveni, now only appears in public wearing a bulletproof vest and helmet.

For many Ugandans, his change in attire – and the state violence that led to it – are symbols of a foregone political outcome: An incumbent victory likely to be rejected by his competitors.

Since he was cleared to run in the election in September, Bobi Wine’s campaign convoy has frequently been met with tear gas, roadblocks and arrests of supporters. Campaign events are regularly disrupted, with people abruptly dispersing and roads sealed off.

While the violence has not reached the deadly levels of the 2021 election, when more than 50 people were killed and hundreds of Bobi Wine supporters were detained following spontaneous protests in the capital, Kampala, the campaign environment has become increasingly militarised – defined by calculated repression, intimidation and a steadily shrinking space for Bobi Wine to sell his manifesto, analysts have observed.

Bobi Wine, 43, is contesting for a second time in Thursday’s election after he finished as the runner-up in the 2021 polls.

Museveni won that last disputed vote during which Bobi Wine alleged fraud and urged citizens to reject the result. The 81-year-old incumbent has ruled the country for nearly four decades after capturing power following a rebel war, and is seeking a seventh term in office.

Five other candidates are also in this year’s race, in which 21.6 million registered voters are expected to cast their votes.

A climate of fear

Even before campaigning officially began, Bobi Wine’s team expected violence.

Museveni’s son, Muhoozi Kainerugaba – who serves as Uganda’s army chief – had publicly threatened Bobi Wine in the months leading to the campaign season, including remarks about beheading him.

Kainerugaba also claimed responsibility for the abduction and torture of Bobi Wine’s bodyguard, Edward Ssebuufu, who remains in detention.

Opposition officials say that while the worst of Kainerugaba’s threats have not materialised, the state, fearing the big audience Bobi Wine was attracting, decided to unleash violence on him during the election campaign.

“In terms of violence, we saw that the first month [October] was a bit not so violent, but after that it became violent and chaotic,” David Lewis Rubonyoya, secretary-general of National Unity Platform (NUP), the party Bobi Wine leads, told Al Jazeera.

During a campaign stop in Gulu, northern Uganda, in December, Bobi Wine was attacked by security forces and plainclothes individuals armed with sticks. He and several of his aides were beaten, and campaign equipment was vandalised. One person later died following the incident. In a separate incident in Mbarara, western Uganda, in November, police arrested 43 Bobi Wine supporters after a confrontation over campaign routes. They remain in detention.

During the 2021 election period, the protests and deadly police crackdown were prompted by Bobi Wine’s arrest for allegedly flaunting COVID-19 guidelines. This year, although the violence has so far been muted, opposition figures and analysts insist the repression is no less severe – only more controlled.

Michael Mutyaba, a Ugandan political analyst and a doctoral researcher at SOAS University of London, says the difference lies in strategy.

“In 2021 and before, security agencies were in panic mode. There was state violence that was less calculated. The violence now looks more calculated and expanded,” he told Al Jazeera. He pointed to arrests of random people, like a Catholic priest charged with money laundering, as examples. The government also arrested Sarah Birete, a prominent human rights activist and critic, who will only be released after the election.

Voter and candidate ‘bribery’

Bobi Wine, too, has faced increased onslaught from the state, with candidates sponsored by his party to stand in parliamentary elections coming under particular strain. Many of the targeted candidates standing in the parliamentary polls, also being held on Thursday, have withdrawn their candidacies, publicly denounced Bobi Wine, and joined the governing party.

Most of these defections, managed by parliament’s deputy speaker, Thomas Tayebwa, have occurred daily but mainly outside the central region, which is considered Bobi Wine’s stronghold. Bobi Wine has claimed that these candidates were bribed, while the state maintains that they joined the governing party freely and without conditions.

Yusuf Serunkuma, a political analyst based at Kampala’s Makerere University, said he is not surprised by the “regime’s” tactics.

“This is part of transactional politics,” he told Al Jazeera. But he added that if the opposition had the capacity to buy candidates from the governing party, they too would be doing it daily.

Another method the state has used to eliminate candidates sponsored by Bobi Wine’s party has been through disqualification by the Electoral Commission, which has argued that some candidates failed to meet nomination requirements. Jude Byamukama, a Ugandan constitutional lawyer, says the cancellations have been “ridiculous”, as critics say they are tactics deployed to halt the opposition.

“They [Electoral Commission] were trying to create unopposed candidates in several constituencies without a lawful basis,” Byamukama told Al Jazeera. He added that after disqualification, the commission then made it difficult for candidates to appeal to the courts by failing to serve them the decisions on time.

Months before the election season, Museveni also launched a softer offensive, particularly targeting informal sector players in Bobi Wine’s strongholds in central Uganda. There, the president has distributed millions of dollars in cash to groups such as motorcycle riders, taxi drivers, salon operators and street vendors. Mwambutsya Ndebesa, a retired historian from Makerere University, describes this as “electoral corruption” meant to influence voters, while Serunkuma said “vote buying” is normal in Ugandan politics, but this time, it’s been more organised.

Fears the worst is yet to come

As election day approaches on Thursday, Bobi Wine has warned that the state plans to arrest him and abduct key organisers who would play a role in monitoring polling stations.

He has issued advice to supporters: Disable phone location services, avoid predictable routes, limit time spent in one place, and flee if followed by unfamiliar vehicles or motorcycles – like the Toyota Hiace commonly associated with state abductions.

“I am aware of a plot by the desperate regime to have me arrested before polling day,” he recently said on social media.

Another flashpoint looms over election day itself: Whether voters should remain near polling stations after voting to “protect the vote”, as Bobi Wine has urged.

Ugandan law allows voters to remain at least 20 metres (66ft) away from polling stations, but the Electoral Commission and security agencies have advised people to leave immediately after voting.

The Electoral Commission has framed the issue as one of discipline rather than legality, warning that crowds could provoke disorder.

Ugandans want peace

Despite the tense atmosphere among political players, Ugandans say they want peace – regardless of political affiliation.

Wanyama Isaac, a casual construction worker in Kampala and a Bobi Wine supporter, says elections should not descend into violence.

“Violence helps no one. It is the responsibility of both sides to remain calm,” he said.

Mashabe Alex, a boda boda rider who supports Museveni, agrees.

“Violence destroys businesses and lives, as we saw in 2021.”

He says the opposition should not threaten Museveni supporters like himself.

An uncertain endgame

Bobi Wine’s camp has not disclosed its post-election strategy. But Museveni has been warning his competitor’s supporters not to dare confront security agencies.

“I have heard Bobi Wine say that soldiers and police are few while rioters are many. I advise you not to believe him. Every soldier and police officer has a gun with 120 bullets,” Museveni warned in December.

The military already has soldiers in infantry mobility vehicles in Kampala, an opposition stronghold.

Rubongoya of the NUP argues that the Electoral Commission cannot declare an opposition candidate a winner in Uganda without pressure from the public.

“If Ugandans vote in large numbers and peacefully demand their victory, the Electoral Commission will be pushed to announce the right candidate,” he said.

“Our ideology is people power. If people are determined, intimidation and money will not stop them,” he added.

However, Rubongoya acknowledged that memories of the 2020–2021 election violence still haunt many Ugandans. He warned that any attempt to protest could be met with lethal force.

Serunkuma argues that the opposition signed up for an electoral process that was rigged from the start, and that they know they can never win, suggesting that their target may not be unseating Museveni himself.

Rather, he says parties like that of Bobi Wine want to “consolidate themselves under Museveni” by, for instance, retaining positions they hold in parliament.

Mutyaba predicts that after the election results are announced, Bobi Wine will likely be placed under house arrest – a tactic the state has used repeatedly since 2011. His party will issue statements dismissing the election results, and that will likely be the end.

“It is impossible to organise protests under the current conditions,” Mutyaba said. “The dynamics are not in their favour. The only hope is that, at some point during Museveni’s next term, an incident could trigger an uprising. But that will not happen next week.”

Prosecutors accused sailor Jinchao Wei of selling information about US Navy ships to Chinese intelligence operatives.

A former United States Navy sailor has been sentenced to more than 16 years in prison after being convicted of selling technical and operating manuals for ships and operating systems to an intelligence officer working for China.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Diego sentenced Jinchao Wei, 25, to 200 months in prison.

In August, a jury convicted Wei of six crimes, including espionage, based on accusations he was paid more than $12,000 for selling information, the US Department of Justice said in a statement.

Wei, an engineer for the amphibious assault ship USS Essex, was one of two California-based sailors charged on August 3, 2023, with providing sensitive military information to China. The other, Wenheng Zhao, was sentenced to more than two years in 2024 after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of receiving a bribe in violation of his official duties.

For years, US officials have expressed concern about the espionage threat they say the Chinese government poses, and prosecutors have pursued criminal cases against Beijing intelligence operatives who have allegedly stolen sensitive government and commercial information, including through illegal hacking.

Wei was recruited via social media in 2022 by an intelligence officer who portrayed himself as a naval enthusiast working for the state-owned China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, prosecutors said.

Evidence presented in court showed Wei told a friend that the person was “extremely suspicious” and that it was “quite obviously” espionage.

Wei disregarded the friend’s advice to delete the contact and instead moved conversations with the intelligence officer to a different encrypted messaging app he believed to be more secure, prosecutors said.

Over the course of 18 months, Wei sent the officer photos and videos of the Essex, advised him of the location of various naval ships and told him about the Essex’s defensive weapons, prosecutors said.

Wei sold the intelligence officer 60 technical and operating manuals, including those for weapons control, aircraft and deck elevators. The manuals contained export control warnings and detailed the operations of multiple systems on board the Essex and similar ships.

He was a petty officer second class, which is an enlisted sailor’s rank.

The navy’s website says the Essex is equipped to transport and support a Marine Corps landing force of more than 2,000 personnel during an air and amphibious assault.

In a letter to the judge before sentencing, Wei apologised and said he should not have shared anything with the person whom he had considered a friend. Wei said “introversion and loneliness” clouded his judgement.

These are the key developments from day 1,419 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is where things stand on Tuesday, January 13:

Fighting

• At least two people have been killed and three others injured as Russia launched attacks on Ukraine’s northeastern city of Kharkiv, according to Regional Governor Oleh Syniehubov.

• Russia also initiated a separate missile attack on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, and air defence units have been deployed to repel it, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said on Telegram. Tymur Tkachenko, the head of Kyiv’s military administration, warned residents to take cover. There were no immediate reports on casualties or damage to properties and infrastructure in the attack.

• Russian drones struck two foreign-flagged vessels, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba said, the second such attack in four days on Black Sea shipping. Kuleba said the vessels were sailing under the flags of Panama and San Marino, and that one person was injured.

• Russia attacked energy infrastructure in Ukraine’s southern Odesa region, causing blackouts that affected at least 33,500 families, Ukraine’s largest private energy firm DTEK said, describing the damage as “significant”.

• Emergency crews are struggling to restore heat and power to beleaguered Kyiv residents, more than three days after Russian strikes on energy infrastructure.

• Kuleba said on Telegram that 90 percent of Kyiv’s apartment buildings have had their heating restored, leaving fewer than 500 dwellings still to be connected. But Mayor Klitschko put the number with no heating at 800, with most living on the west bank of the Dnipro River.

• Last year was the deadliest for civilians in Ukraine since 2022, a record driven by intensified hostilities along the front line and the expanded use of long-range weapons, the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said. Conflict-related violence in Ukraine killed 2,514 civilians and injured 12,142 in 2025, a 31 percent rise in the number of victims from 2024, the monitor said in its monthly update.

• Russia’s Ministry of Defence said the target it hit last week with a hypersonic Oreshnik ballistic missile was a Ukrainian aircraft repair plant in Lviv. The Lviv State Aviation Repair Plant is located near the Polish border. Russia described the target as disabled.

• At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the United States decried Russia’s use of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile, calling it an “inexplicable escalation”.
• Russia’s Defence Ministry said its forces had captured the village of Novoboykivske in the Zaporizhia region of Ukraine.

Politics and diplomacy

• In his regular nightly address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the world has to help Iranian protesters free themselves from the oppressive government that “has brought so much evil to Ukraine and to other countries”. Iran’s government is a close ally of Russia.
• German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said he and his US counterpart Marco Rubio had agreed on the importance of a transatlantic alliance to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine.
• Wadephul added that Germany and the US were committed to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which commits member states to rise to each other’s defence, should one state come under attack.
• The German foreign minister added that, at a time of “uncertainty and crises”, unity within NATO “is a clear signal to Russia that it should not try to threaten” the alliance.

• Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard has called for greater pressure on Moscow. She suggested the European Union should ban companies from providing any support to Moscow’s oil and gas shipping fleet, introduce sanctions against Russian fertilisers and stop the export of luxury goods to Russia.

• Norway has announced that it is providing 340 million euros ($397m) in emergency funding to support Ukraine’s energy sector and help the government maintain critical services, as part of its aid in 2026.

• Finnish police said they lifted the seizure of a Russia-linked ship, which had been held on suspicion of sabotaging an undersea telecommunications cable running across the Gulf of Finland, from Helsinki to Estonia.

• The investigation into the Russia-linked ship will nevertheless continue. Some of the ship’s crew remain under a travel ban, according to the head of the investigation at Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation, Risto Lohi.

Economy

• A US-linked investor group won the rights to develop Ukraine’s Dobra lithium deposit in the central Kirovohrad region, Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced on Telegram. The deal is seen as a test case for drawing Western capital into a front-line economy, while trying to deepen ties with Washington.

Police and military officials launched a joint investigation Monday to investigate North Korea‘s claims of drone incursions across the inter-Korean border.

On Saturday, the North’s military claimed that South Korea violated the North’s sovereignty by sending drones into its territory in September and on Jan. 4, but Seoul’s defense ministry denied the claim.

The joint team of some 30 police and military officials has started investigating the alleged incursions, according to the National Police Agency’s National Office of Investigation.

South Korea’s military has denied sending the drones or operating the models allegedly found in the North, raising the possibility that private entities may have been behind them.

Police are reportedly prioritizing looking into past cases involving drones similar to the model unveiled by North Korea.

Experts have rejected the drones in question were operated by the military, saying they appear to use low-cost commercial parts unfit for military purposes.

Some have said the drones appear similar to a model from Chinese drone manufacturer Skywalker Technology.

The Sudanese army is renewing efforts for an operation to retake the Kordofan and Darfur regions from the control of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), as the civil war rages deep into its third year.

The army has been assessing the RSF’s capabilities and resources in readiness for launching the military operation with a large number of military formations fully prepared to launch an attack, it said.

Any full-scale operation to liberate Kordofan in central Sudan and Darfur in the west would surpass the Sudanese Armed Forces’ (SAF) recapture of the capital, Khartoum, in March in terms of the planning that has taken place before the mission, it added.

Reporting from Khartoum, Al Jazeera’s Hiba Morgan said the Sudanese army had reorganised and redeployed troops in various parts of Kordofan.

“We have also seen the Sudanese army retake control of territories in the Kordofan region as well as launch air strikes and drone strikes on several RSF positions in Darfur and Kordofan,” she said.

“And it looks like these are the preparations or the first steps of that offensive that the army has been speaking about in efforts to regain control of territories in Kordofan and Darfur,” Morgan added.

The SAF on Friday said it inflicted heavy losses on the RSF during a series of air and ground operations carried out in Darfur and Kordofan.

In a statement, the military said its forces conducted strikes against RSF positions, destroying about 240 combat vehicles and killing hundreds of fighters.

It added that its ground forces had succeeded in pushing RSF fighters out of wide areas in Darfur and Kordofan, and operations were ongoing to pursue remaining elements.

Darfur Governor Minni Arko Minnawi said the recent military action by the SAF in Kordofan has prevented the RSF from laying siege on North Kordofan’s capital, el-Obeid.

But Morgan said people on the ground in the Kordofan region were not reassured by these words and want to see more definitive action from the SAF.

“They want to be able to return to their homes with the RSF withdrawing or retreating from the areas that they have taken over. So far, that is not happening,” she said.

In the meantime, attacks continue. A drone attack carried out by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, an RSF ally, on Monday reportedly killed five people in Habila in South Kordofan state.

The RSF’s recent resurgence in the vast regions of Darfur and Kordofan has displaced millions more people.

Both sides have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, while the RSF has been implicated in atrocities in Darfur that the United Nations said may amount to genocide.

Recently, the UN described el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state, as a “crime scene” after gaining access to the largely deserted city for the first time since its takeover by the RSF in October, which was marked by mass atrocities.

International aid staff visited el-Fasher after weeks of negotiations, finding few people remaining in what was once a densely populated city with a large displaced population.

More than 100,000 residents fled el-Fasher after the RSF seized control on October 26 following an 18-month siege. Survivors reported ethnically motivated mass killings and widespread detentions.

Fierce fighting and global funding cuts have pushed more than 33 million people towards starvation in what has become one of the world’s severest humanitarian crises, nongovernmental organisations said on Friday as the war passed its 1,000th day.

The conflict has displaced 11 million people internally and abroad and created the world’s largest displacement and hunger crisis.

Prime Minister Kamil Idris announced on Sunday the government’s return to Khartoum, after nearly three years of operating from its wartime capital of Port Sudan.

In the early days of the civil war, which began in April 2023, the army-aligned government fled the capital, which was quickly overrun by the RSF.

The government has pursued a gradual return to Khartoum since the army recaptured the city.

“Today, we return, and the government of hope returns to the national capital,” Idris told reporters on Sunday in Khartoum.

US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his ambition to bring Greenland under US control. Trump said if the US didn’t control Greenland – China or Russia would. But Trump’s desire for Greenland goes beyond security ambitions. Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands explains.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

US president says Washington is closely monitoring protests in Iran and considering possible military intervention.

United States President Donald Trump has said that Washington is considering “strong options” in response to the protests in Iran, including possible military intervention.

“We’re looking at it very seriously. The military is looking at it, and we’re looking at some very strong options. We’ll make a determination,” he told reporters on board Air Force One late on Sunday.

He said Iran’s leadership had called, seeking “to negotiate” after his threats of military action, and that a “meeting is being set up”.

But he added that “we may have to act before a meeting”.

More soon… 

New Delhi, India – Joint naval drills involving several members of the BRICS bloc, including China, Russia and Iran, have kicked off near South Africa’s coast with South Africa describing the manoeuvres as a vital response to rising maritime tensions globally.

The weeklong Will for Peace 2026 exercises, which started on Saturday, are being led by China in Simon’s Town, where the Indian Ocean meets the Atlantic Ocean. They will include drills on rescue and maritime strike operations and technical exchanges, China’s Ministry of National Defence said.

The drills involving warships from the participating countries come amid frayed ties between South Africa and the United States. Washington sees the bloc as an economic threat.

The BRICS acronym is derived from the initial letters of the founding member countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – with South Africa serving as the current chair. India and Brazil, however, opted out of the drills.

So why do the drills matter, and what is their aim? And why are some founding members not participating?

Who is participating in the drills?

China and Iran sent destroyers, Russia and the United Arab Emirates sent corvettes and South Africa deployed a mid-sized frigate.

Chinese officials leading the opening ceremony on Saturday south of Cape Town said Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and Ethiopia were joining the drills as observers.

Speaking at the ceremony, South Africa’s joint task force commander, Captain Nndwakhulu Thomas Thamaha, said the drills were more than a military exercise and a statement of intent among the BRICS group of nations.

The host country described this as a BRICS Plus operation aimed at ensuring “the safety of shipping and maritime economic activities”. BRICS Plus is an expansion that enables the geopolitical bloc to engage with and court additional countries beyond its core members.

South African officials said all members of the bloc were invited to the drills.

Iran joined the group in 2024. The bloc was simultaneously expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Why do the drills matter?

South Africa has previously carried out naval drills with China and Russia.

“It is a demonstration of our collective resolve to work together,” Thamaha said. “In an increasingly complex maritime environment, cooperation such as this is not an option. It is essential.”

The South African Department of Defence said in a statement that this year’s exercise “reflects the collective commitment of all participating navies to safeguard maritime trade routes, enhance shared operational procedures and deepen cooperation in support of peaceful maritime security initiatives”.

The ongoing exercises come amid heightened geopolitical tensions. They started just three days after the United States seized a Venezuela-linked Russian oil tanker in the North Atlantic, saying it had violated Western sanctions.

The seizure followed a US military operation that abducted President Nicolas Maduro from the capital, Caracas, with his wife, Cilia Flores and a pledge from US President Donald Trump to “run” Venezuela and exploit its vast oil reserves.

The Trump administration has also threatened military action against countries such as Cuba, Colombia and Iran and the semiautonomous Danish territory Greenland.

How does Trump see BRICS?

Trump has accused some BRICS members of pursuing “anti-American” policies.

While Washington’s relations continue to be sour with China and Russia, Trump has attacked Iran and imposed punishing tariffs on India, which it has accused of funding Russia’s war against Ukraine by buying Russian oil.

After taking office in January 2025, Trump had threatened all the BRICS members with an additional 10 percent tariff.

“When I heard about this group from BRICS, six countries, basically, I hit them very, very hard. And if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly,” Trump said in July before the annual summit of the developing nations. “We can never let anyone play games with us.”

In their joint statement from July, the BRICS leaders took a defiant tone and called out global concern over a “rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” without naming the US and condemned the military strikes on Iran.

Who opted out of the joint drills and why?

Two of the founding members of the BRICS alliance, India and Brazil, are not participating in the naval drills.

While Brasilia joined the exercises as an observer, New Delhi stayed away.

Since Trump returned to the White House, New Delhi has seen its stock crash in Washington.

India’s purchase of Russian oil is among the biggest flashpoints in their bilateral ties with a trade deal hanging in the balance.

For New Delhi, opting out of the drills is “about balancing ties with the US”, said Harsh Pant, a geopolitical analyst at the New Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation. “But these so-called wargames are also not the BRICS mandate.”

BRICS essentially is not a military alliance but an intergovernmental partnership of developing nations focused on economic cooperation and trade aimed at breaking an overreliance on the West.

Pant told Al Jazeera that for China, Russia, Iran and to some extent South Africa, the joint military exercise “helps [a narrative] about positioning themselves vis-a-vis the US at this juncture”.

“India would prefer not to be tagged in the BRICS wargames,” Pant said, adding that New Delhi would also not be comfortable with the gradual evolution of BRICS’s foundational nature. “This is not really something that India can take forward, both pragmatically and normatively.”

On top of that, Pant argued, there are key differences between countries in BRICS Plus – like the UAE and Iran, or Egypt and Iran – for the bloc to become a formidable military alliance.

When did South Africa last host joint drills?

South Africa conducted Exercise Mosi, as it was previously called, twice with Russia and China.

The first Exercise Mosi, which means “smoke” in the Sesotho language, took place in November 2019. The second iteration, Exercise Mosi II, was held in February 2023, coinciding with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

South Africa had faced heat from the West for hosting the joint drills then.

A third edition was scheduled for late 2025, but it overlapped with a Group of 20 summit that was held in South Africa in November. Washington did not send any delegates. The ongoing Will for Peace 2026, now rebranded, is the third edition of the drills.

What’s at stake for South Africa?

The exercises in South African waters will likely further raise tensions with Washington.

Since Trump took office again, South Africa-US ties have deteriorated over a range of issues, and Trump has imposed 30 percent tariffs on South African goods.

A part of the fallout is also rooted in the South African government’s decision to bring a genocide case against Israel, a top US ally, before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It accuses the Israeli government of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In a preliminary ruling, the world court found it plausible that Israeli actions amounted to genocide.

When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the White House in May, hoping to mend ties, Trump falsely claimed that white South African farmers were facing systematic killings.

Ramaphosa rejected the claims. None of South Africa’s political parties says there is a “white genocide” happening in the country as the Trump administration claims.

Hosting the wargames at a time of global geopolitical upheaval has its own risks, given that the US sees some of the participants as a military threat.

Ramaphosa’s government also faces criticism from one of its largest coalition partners, the liberal Democratic Alliance (DA). A DA spokesperson, Chris Hattingh, said in a statement that the bloc has no defensive role or shared military plans to warrant such exercises.

The party said BRICS had “rendered South Africa a pawn in the power games being waged by rogue states on the international stage”.

Tehran has warned it will retaliate against US military bases and Israel if Iran is attacked. Iran’s parliamentary speaker was addressing US President Donald Trump, who has threatened Iran’s leadership against using force on demonstrators.

Polls have opened in 100 townships across the country, with the military claiming 52 percent turnout in the first round.

Myanmar has resumed voting in the second phase of the three-part general elections amid a raging civil war and allegations the polls are designed to legitimise military rule.

Polling stations opened at 6am local time on Sunday (23:30 GMT on Saturday) across 100 townships in parts of Sagaing, Magway, Mandalay, Bago and Tanintharyi regions, as well as Mon, Shan, Kachin, Kayah and Kayin states.

Many of those areas have seen clashes in recent months or remain under heightened security.

Myanmar has been ravaged by conflict since the military ousted ⁠a civilian government in a 2021 coup and arrested its leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, leading to ​a civil war that has engulfed large parts of the impoverished nation of 51 million people.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s ‍National League for Democracy party, which swept the last election in 2020, has been dissolved along with dozens of other antimilitary parties for failing to register for the latest polls.

The election is taking place in three phases because of the ongoing conflict. The first phase unfolded on December 28 in 102 of the country’s 330 townships, while a third round is scheduled for January 25.

Some 65 townships will not participate due to ongoing clashes.

The military claimed a 52 percent voter turnout after the December 28 vote, while the pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which analysts say is a civilian proxy for the military, said it won more than 80 percent of seats contested in the lower house of the legislature.

“The USDP is on track for a landslide victory, which is hardly a surprise given the extent to which the playing field was tilted in ​its favour. This included the removal of any serious rivals and a set of ‌laws designed to stifle opposition to the polls,” said Richard Horsey, senior Myanmar adviser for Crisis Group.

Myanmar has a two-house national legislature, totalling 664 seats. The party with a combined parliamentary majority can select the new president, who can pick a cabinet and form a new government. The military automatically receives 25 percent of seats in each house under the constitution.

On Sunday morning, people in Yangon, the country’s largest city, cast their ballots at schools, government offices and religious buildings, including in Aung San Suu Kyi’s former constituency of Kawhmu, located roughly 25km (16 miles) south of the city.

As she exited her polling station, 54-year-old farmer Than Than Sint told the AFP news agency she voted because she wants peace in Myanmar, even though she knows it will come slowly given the fractured country’s “problems”.

Still, “I think things will be better after the election”, she said.

Others were less enthusiastic. A 50-year-old resident of Yangon, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons, said, “The results lie only in the mouth of the military.”

“People have very little interest in this election,” the person added. “This election has absolutely nothing to do with escaping this suffering.”

The United Nations and human rights groups have called the elections a “sham” that attempt to sanitise the military’s image.

Tom Andrews, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said earlier this week that the election was “not a free, fair, nor legitimate election” by “all measures”.

“It is a theatrical performance that has exerted enormous pressure on the people of Myanmar to participate in what has been designed to dupe the international community,” Andrews said.

Laws enacted by the military ahead of the vote have made protest or criticism of the elections punishable by up to 10 years in prison. More than 200 people currently face charges under the measure, the UN said, citing state media.

Separately, at least 22,000 people are currently being detained in Myanmar for political offences, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump announced Saturday that he’s picked a battle-hardened commander who oversaw troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be the nation’s next top military advisor.

If confirmed by the Senate, Gen. Mark Milley, who has been chief of the Army since August 2015, would succeed Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dunford’s term doesn’t end until Oct. 1. Trump said the date of transition is yet to be determined.

Trump tweeted the news, saying “I am pleased to announce my nomination of four-star General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the United States Army — as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing General Joe Dunford, who will be retiring. I am thankful to both of these incredible men for their service to our Country!”

Dunford is a former commandant of the Marine Corps and commander of coalition troops in Afghanistan. Milley commanded troops during several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump’s decision, which he announced before leaving Washington to attend the annual Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia, caught some in the Pentagon by surprise Friday. Normally an announcement on a new chairman wouldn’t be expected until early next year. The officials said the Air Force chief, Gen. David Goldfein, was also a strong contender for the job, but they indicated that Milley has a very good relationship with the president.

Trump hinted earlier Friday that he would make an announcement Saturday, when he attends the game and is expected to perform the coin toss to decide which team gets the ball first. “I can give you a little hint: It will have to do with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and succession,” he said.

Milley is known as a charismatic, outgoing leader who has not been afraid to offer candid and sometimes blunt assessments to Congress. Last year, he admonished the House Armed Services Committee for its inability to approve a defense budget, slamming it as “professional malpractice.” And in 2016, he told lawmakers, in answer to a direct question, that women should also have to register for the draft now that they are allowed to serve in all combat jobs.

As the Army’s top leader, he helped shepherd the groundbreaking move of women into front-line infantry and other combat positions, while warning that it would take time to do it right. More recently, he has worked with his senior officers to reverse a deficit in Army recruiting when the service fell far short of its annual goal this year.

He also played a role in one of the Army’s more contentious criminal cases. While serving as head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., Milley was assigned to review the case of former Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was held captive by the Taliban for five years.

Milley made the early decision to charge Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Bergdahl was eventually found guilty, reduced in rank to private, dishonorably discharged and fined $10,000, but was spared any additional prison time.

A native of Winchester, Mass., and a fervent supporter of the Boston Red Sox and other city teams, Milley received his Army commission from Princeton University in 1980. An infantry officer by training, he also commanded Special Forces units in a career that included deployments in the invasion of Panama in 1989, the multinational mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina to implement the Dayton Peace Accords, and the Iraq war.

The Milley move starts a series of military leadership changes in coming months, including successors in 2019 for Adm. John Richardson as the chief of Naval Operations, Gen. Robert Neller as commandant of the Marine Corps, and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Trump also will pick a replacement for Milley as Army chief.

Goldfein began his term as Air Force chief of staff in 2016, so he wouldn’t be expected to step down until the summer of 2020.

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.

The Syrian army is locked in intense fighting in Aleppo after SDF fighters refused to withdraw under a ceasefire.

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.

WASHINGTON — Five Senate Republicans broke with party leaders on Thursday to advance legislation that would rein in President Trump’s use of the U.S. military in Venezuela, a move that comes as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland.

The procedural vote, which came over the objections of Republican leaders, now sets the stage for a full Senate vote next week on a measure that would block Trump from using military force “within or against Venezuela” without approval from Congress. Even with the Senate’s approval, the legislation is unlikely to become law as it is unlikely to pass the House, and President Trump — who has veto power over legislation — has publicly condemned the measure and the Republicans who supported it.

“This vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote in a social media post shortly after the 52-47 vote in the Senate.

The Republican defection on the issue underscores the growing concern among GOP lawmakers over the Trump administration’s foreign policy ambitions and highlights the bipartisan concern that the president is testing the limits of executive war powers — not only in Venezuela but also in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), one of the Republicans who voted for the resolution, said that while she supported the operation that led to the capture and extradition of Nicolás Maduro, she did not “support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Republicans who supported it were Sens. Collins, Paul, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

“Finally, the Senate is exercising its constitutional power over the authorization of the use of force to prevent America from being dragged into a new war over oil,” Schiff said in a social media post after the vote.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he was not concerned about Trump losing support among Republican lawmakers in Washington, adding that passage of the resolution in the Senate would not “change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks or the next couple of months.”

But Republican support for the resolution reflects a deepening concern within the GOP over Trump’s foreign policy plans, particularly his threats to acquire Greenland — a move that prompted European leaders earlier this week to call on the United States to respect the Arctic territory’s sovereignty

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday that he does not believe “anybody’s seriously considering” using the military to take control of Greenland.

“In Congress, we’re certainly not,” Johnson said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) struck a similar tone the same day, telling reporters that he does not “see military action being an option” in Greenland.

Other Republican lawmakers have been more openly critical, warning that even floating the idea of using force against a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a defense alliance that includes the United States, risks weakening America’s position on the world stage.

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority” and that using the military to achieve that goal was “always an option.” A day earlier, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, told CNN that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”

“Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Miller said.

Miller’s remarks angered Republican senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) who in an interview with CNN on Wednesday called the idea of invading Greenland “weapons-grade stupid.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who has served as the top Republicans on the Senate NATO Observer Group since 2018, criticized the idea as well in a searing Senate floor speech.

“I’m sick of stupid,” Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”

Tillis, who is not seeking reelection this year, later told CNN that Miller needs to “get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job.”

United States President Donald Trump has dismissed international law, saying only his “own morality” can curb the aggressive policies he is pursuing across the world after the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” Trump told The New York Times on Thursday.

Asked whether he needs to abide by international law, Trump said he does, but it “depends what your definition of international law is”.

Trump has shown a willingness to use the brute force of the US military to achieve his foreign policy goals.

On Saturday, the US launched an early-morning attack on Venezuela, with explosions reported across the capital Caracas and at Venezuelan military bases.

US troops ultimately abducted Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas in what critics say was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

The attack on Venezuela appears to have supercharged the belligerence of the US president, who received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize Award last month.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela and exploit the country’s vast oil reserves, though his administration has said it would cooperate with interim President Delcy Rodriguez.

Still, the Trump administration said it would “dictate” policy to the interim government and repeatedly threatened a “second wave” of military actions if US demands were disobeyed.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump said of Rodriguez in a Sunday interview with The Atlantic.

Earlier this week, Trump also suggested that the US may carry out a strike against Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro, and he has escalated his campaign to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland.

In June, Trump joined Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran, ordering the bombing of the country’s three main nuclear sites.

Trump aide Stephen Miller has criticised the post-World War II international order, saying that, from here forward, the US would “unapologetically” use its military force to secure its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

“We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” Miller told CNN on Monday.

But experts warn that disregard for international law could have catastrophic consequences for the entire global community, including the US.

International law is the set of rules and norms that govern ties between states. It includes UN conventions and multilateral treaties.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera earlier this week that US statements dismissing international law are “extremely dangerous”.

Satterthwaite said she is concerned the world may be returning to an “age of imperialism”, stressing that degrading international laws may embolden Washington’s adversaries to launch their own acts of aggression.

“International law cannot stop states from doing terrible things if they’re committed to doing them,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.

“And I think that the world is aware of all of the atrocities that have happened in Gaza recently, and despite efforts by many states and certainly by the UN to stop those atrocities, they continued. But I think we’re worse off if we don’t insist on the international law that does exist. We’ll simply be going down a much worse kind of slippery slope.”

Yusra Suedi, an assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warned against the belief that “might is right” and the trend towards disregarding international law.

“It signals something very dangerous, in that it gives permission to other states to essentially follow suit – states such as China, who might be eyeing Taiwan, or Russia with respect to Ukraine,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, said history illustrates the perils of US policies in Latin America.

The region has witnessed more than a century of US invasions and US-supported military coups, leading to instability, repression and human rights abuses.

“There are innumerable examples historically of this, from Panama to Haiti to Nicaragua to Chile in the ’70s and on and on,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.

He added that Trump’s policies in Venezuela are “in line” with how the US has previously attempted to decide how other parts of the Americas are governed.

“You can see that in every one of those cases, the US came to regret its choice to intervene. These never work well.”

Israeli gunfire killed 11-year-old Hamsa Hosou in northern Gaza, her family says, despite a ceasefire in place for nearly three months. She is among more than 400 Palestinians reported killed since the truce took effect.

A resolution that would block US President Donald Trump from taking further military action against Venezuela without congressional authorisation has passed in the Senate by a vote of 52-47.

With the measure receiving a simple majority in Thursday’s vote, it will move ahead to the House.

Days after US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a dramatic military raid in Caracas, senators voted on the latest in a series of war powers measures introduced since the administration ramped up military pressure on the country with attacks on boats off its coast in September.

Republicans have blocked all of the measures, but the last vote was just 49-51, as two senators from Trump’s party joined Democrats in backing a resolution in November. Administration officials had told lawmakers at that time that they did not plan to change the government or conduct strikes on Venezuelan territory.

More to come…

Civilians were seen fleeing several northern Aleppo neighbourhoods en masse as the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian military escalate their fighting after a breakdown in integration talks. Estimates vary widely, but some have placed the number of evacuees at more than 100,000.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he will meet Denmark next week as Donald Trump again raises the prospect of gaining control of Greenland. When pressed on NATO concerns, Rubio said the president can use force, but diplomacy is preferred.