peace

May 30 (UPI) — Ukraine said it will not send a delegation for peace talks to Istanbul Monday until Russia provides details of its cease-fire proposal.

Ukraine accused Russia, which has said it will send a delegation to Istanbul for the talks, of stalling in peace negotiations.

“Russia is dragging out the war and doing everything to simply deceive countries that are still trying to influence Moscow with words, not pressure. Words with Moscow do not work. Even the so-called “memorandum” that they promised and supposedly prepared for more than a week has not yet been seen by anyone,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a video posted to the presidential website.

During a joint press conference with Turkey’s foreign minister, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Russia must accept an unconditional cease-fire.

Ukraine has sent cease-fire proposal details to Russia.

“We are interested in seeing these meetings continue because we want the war to end this year,” Sybiha said.

The Monday Istanbul meeting will not include Zelensky or Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the Russian cease-fire proposal memo will be delivered at the Monday Istanbul meeting.

He said it will focus on overcoming what he termed the “root causes” of the war.

Lavrov proposed a second round of Istanbul talks for June 2. Ukraine has not yet committed to that proposed meeting.

“They are doing everything to make the meetings empty. And this is another reason to have sufficient sanctions – sufficient pressure on Russia,” Zelensky said of Russia.

The United States, France, Germany and Britain are all sending security advisors to the Monday Istanbul talks as Ukraine awaits details from Russia about its cease-fire proposal.

Ukraine’s position is that it must see details of the Russian cease-fire proposal before the next peace talks session happens.

May 31 (UPI) — The United States and its allies won’t allow China to dominate the Indo-Pacific region, but do not seek war, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Saturday morning in Singapore.

He addressed regional concerns while speaking during the International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue event in Singapore.

Hegseth said the Indo-Pacific region is the United States’ “priority theater” and won’t allow China to push the United States and its allies out of the region, the Department of Defense announced Friday in a news release.

Instead, deterrence will be the primary tool by which the United States and its allies will counter any aggressive moves made by China, particularly in the South China Sea and against Taiwan.

“As our allies share the burden, we can increase our focus on the Indo-Pacific,” Hegseth said, adding that the region is the nation’s “priority theater.”

He said the futures of the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific depend on each other.

“We share a vision of peace and stability, of prosperity and security,” Hegseth said, “and we are here to stay.”

Common sense and national interests with guide policy making in the region, while respecting mutual self-interests.

President Donald Trump is working to get European nations to do more to increase their respective national security interests instead of largely relying on the United States.

As European nations do more to protect themselves, Hegseth said the United States will be better able to focus on matters in the Indo-Pacific region and do more to thwart Chinese aggression.

“This enables all of us to benefit from the peace and stability that comes with a lasting and strong American presence here in the Indo-Pacific,” Hegseth said.

That presence won’t come at a cost for the nation’s allies, though.

“We are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology,” Hegseth told the audience. “We are all sovereign nations.”

He said the United States does not “seek conflict with communist China.”

But the United States “will not be pushed out of this critical region,” Hegseth added. “And we will not let our allies and partners be subordinated and intimidated.”

He said China’s leaders are “preparing to use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific,” including occupying Taiwan.

Any move by China to take over Taiwan, which China has claimed as part of its sovereign state, would trigger “devastating consequences” for the region and the world, Hegseth told the audience.

“The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,” he said, adding that the United States and its allies must be prepared with “urgency and vigilance.”

If deterrence doesn’t work and a fighting war is inevitable, “we are prepared to do what the Department of Defense does best: to fight and win decisively,” Hegseth said.

The best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war, “but we have to do this quickly,” he said. “We have no time to waste.”

Ukraine’s president has questioned Russia’s commitment to progressing peace talks after Moscow confirmed it was sending a team to talks in Istanbul on Monday.

Russia is yet to send its negotiating proposals to Ukraine – a key demand by Kyiv. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow’s conditions for a ceasefire would be discussed in Turkey.

But Volodymyr Zelensky accused Moscow of “doing everything it can to ensure the next possible meeting is fruitless”.

“For a meeting to be meaningful, its agenda must be clear, and the negotiations must be properly prepared,” he said. Ukraine had sent its proposals to Russia, reaffirming “readiness for a full and unconditional ceasefire”.

The first round of talks two weeks ago in Istanbul brought no breakthrough, but achieved a prisoner of war swap.

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukraine’s territory, including the southern Crimea peninsula Moscow annexed in 2014.

As the talks approached, both Russia and Ukraine reported explosions on Friday night and in the early hours of Saturday morning.

In Ukraine’s Kherson region, three people were killed and 10 more were injured, according to Oleksandr Prokudin, head of the region’s military administration.

On social media, he said that the “Russian military hit critical and social infrastructure” as well as “residential areas of settlements in the region”.

One person was also killed in the Sumy region, the administration there said.

Officials said at least one person had also been injured in explosions in the cities of Kharkiv and Izyum.

Meanwhile, at least 14 people were injured in an explosion in Russia’s Kursk region, according to the acting local governor Alexander Khinshtein and Russia’s state-owned news agency, TASS.

On Friday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha reiterated that Kyiv had already sent its own “vision of future steps” to Russia, adding Moscow “must accept an unconditional ceasefire” to pave the way for broader negotiations.

“We are interested in seeing these meetings continue because we want the war to end this year,” Sybiha said during a joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan.

Putin and Zelensky are not expected to attend the talks on Monday.

But Fidan said Turkey was hoping to eventually host a high-level summit.

“We sincerely think it is time to bring President Trump, President Putin and President Zelensky to the table,” he said.

Peskov said Russia’s ceasefire proposals would not be made public, and Moscow would only entertain the idea of a high-level summit if meaningful progress was achieved in preliminary discussions between the two countries.

He welcomed comments made by Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, retired Gen Keith Kellogg, who described Russian concerns over Nato enlargement as “fair”.

Gen Kellogg said Ukraine joining the military alliance, long hoped for by Kyiv, was not on the table.

He added President Trump was “frustrated” by what he described as Russia’s intransigence, but emphasised the need to keep negotiations alive.

On 19 May, Trump and Putin had a two-hour phone call to discuss a US-proposed ceasefire deal to halt the fighting.

The US president said he believed the call had gone “very well”, adding that Russia and Ukraine would “immediately start” negotiations towards a ceasefire and “an end to the war”.

Ukraine has publicly agreed to a 30-day ceasefire but Putin has only said Russia will work with Ukraine to craft a “memorandum” on a “possible future peace” – a move described by Kyiv and its European allies as delaying tactics so Russian troops could seize more Ukrainian territory.

In a rare rebuke to Putin just days later, Trump called the Kremlin leader “absolutely crazy” and threatened US sanctions. His comments followed Moscow’s largest drone and missile attacks on Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Germany’s new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, told Zelensky that Berlin would help Kyiv produce long-range missiles to defend itself from future Russian attacks.

The Kremlin said any decision to end range restrictions on the missiles Ukraine could use would represent a dangerous change in policy that would harm efforts to bring an end to the war.

Russia and Ukraine have launched a wave of drone attacks against each other overnight, even as Moscow claimed it was finalising a peace proposal to end the war.

Ukrainian air force officials said on Tuesday that Russia deployed 60 drones across multiple regions through the night, injuring 10 people. Kyiv’s air defences intercepted 43 of them – 35 were shot down while eight were diverted using electronic warfare systems.

In Dnipropetrovsk, central Ukraine, Governor Serhiy Lysak reported damage to residential properties and an agricultural site after Russian drones led to fires during the night. In Kherson, a southern city frequently hit by Russian strikes, a drone attack on Tuesday morning wounded a 59-year-old man and six municipal workers, officials said.

The barrage came days after Ukraine endured one of the heaviest aerial offensives of the war. On Sunday night alone, Ukraine’s air force claimed Russia launched 355 drones, a record number.

That escalation prompted United States President Donald Trump to declare that Vladimir Putin had “gone absolutely CRAZY” and to threaten new sanctions. The Kremlin brushed off the remarks, accusing Trump of suffering from “emotional overload”.

Russia said on Tuesday that its huge aerial assaults in recent days were a “response” to escalating Ukrainian drone attacks on its own civilians, accusing Kyiv of trying to “disrupt” peace efforts.

“Kyiv, with the support of some European countries, has taken a series of provocative steps to thwart negotiations initiated by Russia,” the Russian Ministry of Defence said in a statement.

The ministry said its forces had shot down 99 Ukrainian drones on Tuesday, including 56 over the Belgorod region, which borders Ukraine.

It claimed that from May 20 to 27, air defence units intercepted more than 2,300 Ukrainian drones – 1,465 of them outside active conflict zones.

Russia seizes more territory

In a further setback for Kyiv, Russian troops have captured four villages in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region, the local governor confirmed on Tuesday.

Oleh Hryhorov said Novenke, Basivka, Veselivka and Zhuravka were now under Russian control, though civilians had already been evacuated. “The enemy is continuing attempts to advance with the aim of setting up a so-called ‘buffer zone’,” he wrote on Facebook.

Russia’s Defence Ministry also claimed it had taken the nearby village of Bilovody, pointing to further advances near the border.

Though Moscow’s main offensive remains in Donetsk, its push into Sumy shows how Russian forces are stretching Ukraine’s army thin across multiple fronts.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned again this week that new Russian offensives were likely in Sumy, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia.

Russian troops have been attacking in small groups on motorcycles, backed by drones. Ukrainian forces say they’re holding the line and targeting enemy positions with precision fire.

Military blog DeepState reported over the weekend that Russia now holds about 62.6 sq km (24 square miles) in the region – the first time it has secured a strip of border villages there.

Last month, a Russian missile killed 36 people in the city of Sumy.

Europe undermining peace talks, says Russia

Amid new territorial gains and escalating violence, Russia has shifted blame for the lack of diplomatic progress onto European leaders.

Putin met Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan on Monday to discuss efforts to end the war in Ukraine, according to a source from Turkiye’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Fidan also met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday as part of his two-day trip to Moscow.

During the meeting, Lavrov took aim at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, suggesting his recent comments on Ukraine’s use of Western weapons for strikes deep inside Russia reveal that the decision to greenlight such attacks was made long before it was made public.

Lavrov said Merz’s statement was telling – not only for what it implied about policy but for what it revealed about the current crop of Western leaders.

“This shows what sort of people have come to power in key European countries,” Lavrov said.

Merz had earlier stated that weapons supplied to Kyiv by the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the US were no longer bound by range restrictions, clearing the path for deeper attacks into Russian territory.

On Tuesday, while on an official visit to Finland, Merz said Western allies had lifted restrictions on the range of weapons sent to Ukraine. He warned the war could drag on, citing Russia’s refusal to engage in meaningful talks. “We may have to prepare for a longer duration,” he told reporters.

Meanwhile, Moscow accused Ukraine and its European allies of deliberately undermining efforts to revive peace talks. “Since 20 May, Ukraine has ramped up strikes on Russian territory using Western-supplied weapons, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure,” it said.

Direct talks between Russia and Ukraine resumed on May 16 – the first in more than three years – but failed to result in a ceasefire. Russia has since insisted it is working on a serious draft agreement to end hostilities.

“This is a serious draft, a draft of a serious document that demands careful checks and preparation,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, adding it had not yet been submitted.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said the draft would lay out key terms for a political settlement and potential ceasefire, and would be presented to Kyiv once finalised.

Moscow has accused Ukraine of escalating attacks in recent days to derail the negotiations. In response to media reports about possible new US sanctions, Peskov claimed Washington was trying to sabotage the diplomatic process.

The resurgence of conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo has drawn renewed international attention following M23’s swift capture of Goma and Bukavu in late January 2025. In response, global actors have called for an immediate ceasefire and direct negotiations. Notably, Qatar and the United States have stepped forward as emerging mediators. This new momentum offers a rare opportunity to revisit the shortcomings of past mediation efforts – particularly failures in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR), wealth-sharing, and regional consensus. Any new diplomatic initiative must prioritise these elements to forge a durable settlement and lasting regional stability.

To achieve a sustainable and enduring peace in eastern DRC, it is essential to address the root causes of the conflict. The region’s vast deposits of natural resources – especially rare earth minerals – have attracted international, regional and local actors competing for control, fuelling instability. Compounding this is the Congolese central government’s limited capacity to govern the eastern provinces, enabling the proliferation of armed groups with diverse allegiances. Ethnic tensions further exacerbate the crisis, particularly since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, after which the arrival of Hutu refugees and the formation of hostile militias heightened insecurity and cross-border conflict.

While regional dynamics, including Rwandan involvement, are undeniably significant, attributing the conflict solely to Rwanda risks oversimplification. Such narratives obscure the DRC’s longstanding structural inequalities, particularly the marginalisation of Congolese Tutsi communities. A durable peace must engage with these internal dynamics by ensuring the meaningful inclusion of Congolese Tutsi in the national political framework and addressing their grievances through equitable and just mechanisms.

Despite repeated international engagement, past mediation efforts in eastern DRC – from the Pretoria Agreement to the 2009 peace accords – have consistently failed to deliver lasting peace. These initiatives were undermined by structural weaknesses that eroded both their credibility and effectiveness.

A central flaw has been the absence of credible enforcement mechanisms. Most agreements relied on voluntary compliance and lacked robust, impartial monitoring frameworks capable of verifying implementation or deterring violations. Where monitoring mechanisms existed, they were often under-resourced, poorly coordinated, or perceived as biased. The international community’s inconsistent attention and limited political will to exert sustained pressure further undermined these efforts. In the absence of meaningful accountability, armed groups and political elites repeatedly violated agreements without consequence, fuelling a cycle of impunity and renewed violence.

Equally problematic has been the exclusionary nature of the peace processes. Negotiations were often dominated by political and military elites, sidelining civil society, grassroots communities, and particularly women – actors essential for building sustainable peace. Without broad-based participation, the accords failed to reflect the realities on the ground or earn the trust of local populations.

Moreover, these efforts largely ignored the root causes of the conflict, such as land disputes, ethnic marginalisation, governance failures and competition over natural resources. By prioritising short-term ceasefires and elite power-sharing arrangements, mediators overlooked the deeper structural issues that drive instability.

DDR programs – vital to breaking the conflict cycle – have also been inadequately designed and poorly executed. Many former combatants were left without viable livelihoods, creating fertile ground for re-recruitment into armed groups and further violence.

Crucially, these flaws were compounded by a lack of political will within the Congolese government. Successive administrations have, at times, instrumentalised peace talks to consolidate power rather than to advance genuine reform, undermining implementation and eroding public confidence.

More recent efforts, such as the Luanda and Nairobi processes, aimed to revive political dialogue and de-escalate tensions. However, they too have struggled to gain legitimacy. Critics argue that both initiatives were top-down, narrowly political and failed to include the voices of those most affected by the conflict. Civil society actors and marginalised communities perceived these dialogues as superficial and disconnected from local realities.

These processes also fell short in addressing the underlying drivers of violence – displacement, land ownership disputes, poor governance and the reintegration of ex-combatants. Without credible mechanisms for local participation or structural reform, the Luanda and Nairobi processes came to be seen more as diplomatic performances than genuine pathways to peace.

Taken together, these recurring shortcomings explain why international mediation efforts in DRC have largely failed. For any new initiative – including those led by Qatar and the United States – to succeed, it must move beyond these limitations and embrace a more inclusive, accountable and locally rooted approach.

The latest round of international facilitation – led by the United States and Qatar, alongside African-led efforts by the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) under Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe – offers renewed potential for meaningful progress. However, success will depend on whether these efforts can overcome the systemic failures that have plagued previous mediation attempts.

To chart a more effective and durable path to peace, Qatari and American engagement should be guided by three core principles drawn from past experience:

First, prioritise inclusive participation. Previous peace processes were largely elite-driven, involving governments and armed groups while excluding civil society, women and affected communities. This lack of inclusivity weakened legitimacy and failed to address the grievances of those most impacted by violence. A credible mediation process must include these actors to build a broad-based coalition for peace and ensure that negotiated outcomes reflect the lived realities of eastern DRC communities.

Second, address the root causes of the conflict – not just its symptoms. Earlier efforts focused narrowly on ceasefires and power-sharing, without tackling the structural drivers of instability. Effective mediation must engage with unresolved land disputes, ethnic marginalization, governance failures and the socioeconomic reintegration of former combatants. Without addressing these underlying issues, any agreement will be fragile and short-lived.

Third, establish credible enforcement and accountability mechanisms. One of the most persistent weaknesses of past agreements has been the absence of strong implementation tools. Agreements often lacked independent monitoring bodies, clear benchmarks and consequences for violations. The international community, including Qatar and the United States, must commit to sustained diplomatic pressure and support mechanisms that can ensure compliance and respond decisively to breaches. Without this, the risk of relapse into violence remains high.

By adopting these principles, current mediation efforts stand a greater chance of breaking the cycle of failed peace initiatives and laying the groundwork for a more just and lasting resolution in eastern DRC.

The crisis has once again reached a critical juncture. The involvement of new actors such as Qatar and the United States, working alongside African regional mechanisms, presents a rare opportunity to reset the approach to peacebuilding. By learning from past failures and committing to an inclusive, root cause oriented, and enforceable mediation framework, these efforts can move beyond temporary fixes and lay the foundation for a durable peace – one that finally addresses the aspirations and grievances of the Congolese people.

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

After gunfire erupted outside a humanitarian aid event for Gaza at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington late Wednesday, Yoni Kalin and his wife, JoJo, watched as museum security rushed attendees away from the doors and others who had just left came tumbling back in.

Among those who came in, Kalin said, was a man who appeared agitated, who Kalin and others in the museum first took for a protester, and who “walked right up” to police the moment they arrived, Kalin said.

“‘I did this for Gaza. Free Palestine,’” Kalin recalled the man telling the officers in an interview with The Times Thursday. “He went into his, ‘Free Palestine. There’s only one solution. Intifada revolution’ — you know, the usual chants.”

Kalin, a 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident who works in biotech, said he still had no idea that two Israeli Embassy employees had been fatally shot outside. So when police started to pull the man away and he dropped a red kaffiyeh, or traditional Arab headdress, Kalin picked it up and tried to return it to him, he said.

The event that night — which Kalin’s wife had helped organize with the American Jewish Committee and the humanitarian aid groups Multifaith Alliance and IsraAID — had been “all about bridge building and humanitarian aid and support,” Kalin said, and he figured returning a protester’s kaffiyeh was in line with that ethos.

“I regret that now,” Kalin said Thursday morning, after a nearly restless night. “I regret touching it.”

Like so many other mourners across the nation, Kalin said he was having a hard time processing the “surreal, horrific” attack, and its occurring at an event aimed at boosting collaboration and understanding between Israelis, Palestinians and Americans.

“I don’t think him shouting ‘Free Palestine’ or ‘Free Gaza’ is going to actually help Palestinians or Gazans in this situation, especially given that he murdered people that are actually trying to help on the ground or contribute to these aid efforts,” Kalin said of the shooter. “It’s a really sick irony.”

Israeli officials identified the two victims as employees of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Yaron Lischinsky was an Israeli citizen and research assistant, and Sarah Milgrim was a U.S. citizen who organized visits and missions to Israel. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said the two were a couple, and that Lischinsky had recently purchased a ring and planned to propose to Milgrim next week in Jerusalem.

U.S. authorities called the shooting an “act of terror” and identified the suspect as Elias Rodriguez, 31, of Chicago. Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith said Rodriguez was seen pacing outside the museum before the shooting, and was later detained by security after walking inside.

Dan Bongino, deputy director of the FBI, said the agency was “aware of certain writings allegedly authored by the suspect, and we hope to have updates as to the authenticity very soon.” He said Rodriguez had been interviewed by law enforcement early Thursday morning, and that the FBI did not believe there was any ongoing threat to the public.

President Trump, who spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, and U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi have both promised justice in the shooting.

“These horrible D.C. killings, based obviously on antisemitism, must end, NOW!” Trump posted on social media. “Hatred and Radicalism have no place in the USA.”

Israel Bachar, Israel’s consul general for the U.S. Pacific Southwest, based in Los Angeles, said security has been increased at consul facilities and at other Jewish institutions, with the help of American law enforcement and local police.

The shooting comes amid Israel’s latest major offensive in the Gaza Strip in a war since Oct. 7, 2023, when Israel was attacked by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The attack, launched from Gaza, killed 1,200 people, while Hamas claimed about 250 hostages. Israel’s response has devastated Gaza and killed more than 53,000 people, mostly women and children, according to local health authorities.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi visits the site of the shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum on Thursday.

(Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images)

About 90% of the territory’s roughly 2 million population has been displaced. Much of urban Gaza has been bombed out and destroyed, and Israel has blocked huge amounts of aid from entering the territory, sparking a massive hunger crisis. Protests of Israel’s actions have spread around the world and in the U.S., which is a major arms supplier to Israel.

Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, said that for decades, antisemitic and anti-Muslim attacks have increased in the U.S. when conflicts arise in the Middle East — and Israel’s current war is no exception.

“With the worst conflict the region has seen in years, with a horrifying loss of life and moving images of the suffering taking place in Gaza, what ends up happening is the soil gets soft for antisemitism,” Levin said.

In recent years especially, the spread of such imagery — and of misinformation — on social media has produced “a rabbit-hole where people can get increasingly radicalized,” and where calls for retribution against anyone even tangentially connected to a disfavored group can drown out messages for peace, compassion and aid, Levin said.

“We have unfortunately been caught in a time when the peaceful interfaith voices have been washed over like a tsunami, leaving a vacuum that allows conflict overseas to generate bigotry and violence here,” he said. “We see that again and again — we saw that with 9/11 — where communities become stereotyped and broad-brushed and labeled in certain niches as legitimate target for aggression, and that feeds upon itself like a fire, where you end up having totally innocent people being murdered.”

Several organizations have described Lischinsky and Milgrim as being committed to peace and humanitarian aid work. Kalin said many of the people at the museum event were — and will continue to be.

“This act of violence just makes me want to build bridges even stronger. I think we need to strengthen the coalition. We need more Muslims, we need more Christians, we need more Israelis, we need more Palestinians,” Kalin said. “We need people that believe that peace is the answer — and that hate and violence isn’t going to solve this issue.”

May 19 (UPI) — A federal judge ruled Monday that a DOGE-lead takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace by the Trump administration was “unlawful.”

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the removal of USIP’s president and his replacement by a DOGE-appointed official along with the termination of “nearly all” its staff and transfer of USIP property to the U.S. General Services administration was “effectuated by illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions, which must therefore be declared null and void,” she wrote.

Personnel from White House adviser Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency gained access to the U.S. Institute of Peace after originally being turned away in March. USIP then sued the administration for “unlawful dismantling,” with its acting chief saying DOGE “has broken into our building.”

Legislation signed in 1984 by then-President Ronald Reagan had created the USIP to be an “independent nonprofit corporation established by Congress.”

The Trump administration fired most of USIP’s 12-member board, leaving U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Defense University President Peter Garvin as its three remaining board members.

The three then installed Kenneth Jackson as acting USIP president.

In March, nearly two months to the day of Monday’s ruling, Howell rejected an initial complaint filed by the U.S. Institute of Peace against the Trump administration’s attempted takeover, but questioned the tactics used by DOGE in its appropriation.

“By design, USIP was established by the two political branches to advance a safer, more peaceful world with the specific tasks of conducting research, providing training on peacemaking techniques, and promoting peaceful conflict resolution abroad — without formally involving the U.S. government in foreign disputes,” Howell wrote in a 102-page memorandum opinion.

“The President second-guessed the judgment of Congress and President Reagan in creating USIP 40 years ago,” Howell, an appointee of ex-President Barack Obama, wrote Monday.

Meanwhile, USIP stated in its complaint that the White House “incorrectly labeled” the institute a “governmental entity” part of the “federal bureaucracy.”

However, Howell declined to issue a temporary restraining order, saying USIP was a “very complicated entity” with both qualities of non-governmental organizations and features of government agencies, such as having to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

In 2003, a USIP spokesman said the think tank is required by law to be a non-partisan institution, and is mandated only to address issues related to overseas conflict.

In her 4-page ruling, Howell wrote Monday that USIP Acting President George Moose would stay as its leader and banned the administration from “further trespass against the real and personal property belonging to the Institute and its employees, contractors, agents and other representatives.”

The White House, meanwhile, contended that the U.S. Institute of Peace had existed for 40 years but “failed to deliver peace.”

“President Trump is right to reduce failed, useless entities like USIP to their statutory minimum, and this rogue judge’s attempt to impede on the separation of powers will not be the last say on the matter,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told NBC Monday.

ROME — U.S. Vice President JD Vance extended an invitation to Pope Leo XIV to visit the United States during a meeting at the Vatican on Monday ahead of a flurry of U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to make progress on a ceasefire in Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Vance gave the first American pope a letter from President Trump and the first lady inviting him. The Chicago-born pope took the letter and put it on his desk and was heard saying “at some point,” in the video footage of the meeting provided by Vatican Media.

Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, also gave the Augustinian pope a copy of two of St. Augustine’s most seminal works, “The City of God” and “On Christian Doctrine,” the vice president’s office said. Another gift: A Chicago Bears T-shirt with Leo’s name on it.

“As you can probably imagine, people in the United States are extremely excited about you,” Vance told Leo as they exchanged gifts.

Leo gave Vance a bronze sculpture with the words in Italian “Peace is a fragile flower,” and a coffee-table sized picture book of the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace. Leo noted that Francis had chosen not to live in them and added, “And I may live in, but it’s not totally decided.”

Vance led the U.S. delegation to Sunday’s formal Mass opening the pontificate of the first American pope. Joining him at the meeting on Monday was Secretary of State Marco Rubio, also a Catholic, Vance spokesperson Luke Schroeder said. The two then also met with the Vatican foreign minister, Archbishop Paul Gallagher.

“There was an exchange of views on some current international issues, calling for respect for humanitarian law and international law in areas of conflict and for a negotiated solution between the parties involved,” according to a Vatican statement after their meeting.

According to the photo of the visits released by the Vatican, Leo’s brother, Louis Prevost, a self-described “MAGA-type,” and his wife, Deborah, joined the delegation during the visit.

The Vatican listed Vance’s delegation as the first of several private audiences Leo was having Monday with people who had come to Rome for his inaugural Mass, including other Christian leaders and a group of faithful from his old diocese in Chiclayo, Peru.

The Vatican, which was largely sidelined during the first three years of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has offered to host any peace talks while continuing humanitarian efforts to facilitate prisoner swaps and reunite Ukrainian children taken by Russia.

After greeting Leo briefly at the end of Sunday’s Mass, Vance spent the rest of the day in separate meetings, including with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He also met with European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Italy’s Premier Giorgia Meloni, who said she hoped the trilateral meeting could be a “new beginning.”

In the evening, Meloni spoke by phone with U.S. President Trump and several other European leaders ahead of Trump’s expected call with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on Monday, according to a statement from Meloni’s office.

‘Every effort’

Leo, the former Cardinal Robert Prevost, is a Chicago-born Augustinian missionary who spent the bulk of his ministry in Chiclayo, a commercial city of around 800,000 on Peru’s northern Pacific coast.

In the days since his May 8 election, Leo has vowed “every effort” to help bring peace to Ukraine. He also has emphasized his continuity with Pope Francis, who made caring for migrants and the poor a priority of his pontificate.

Before his election, Prevost shared news articles on X that were critical of the Trump administration’s plans for mass deportations of migrants.

Vance was one of the last foreign officials to meet with Francis before the Argentine pope’s April 21 death. The two had tangled over migration, with Francis publicly rebuking the Trump administration’s deportation plan and correcting Vance’s theological justification for it.

Winfield and Martin write for the Associated Press.

May 18 (UPI) — Israel reported Sunday it found the body of Hamas‘ de facto leader, Muhammad Sinwar, in a tunnel in Khan Younis after he was killed in a series of airstrikes last week.

At least 100 people have been killed in the latest series of airstrikes, and Sinwar’s body was found as Hamas has offered to release nine hostages in exchange for a 60-day military stand down in an effort to slow down the fighting in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.

Sinwar was the younger brother of Yahya Sinwar, the former Hamas leader in Gaza. Another brother, Zakaria Sinwar, was killed in an airstroke Saturday night, other reports claimed. It’s the third Sinwar brother to be killed in the ongoing battle.

Israeli forces overtook a hospital in northern Gaza Saturday as an offensive to seize territory on the Gaza Strip continues, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Forces seized the Indonesian hospital in Beit Lahia, preventing patients, staff and medical supplies from arriving, the ministry said on Sunday, according to the BBC, leaving the medical facility inoperable.

Hamas made its hostage release offer on Saturday following a new round of peace negotiations in Qatar. Officials said there could also be a larger deal in the works to end the fighting that would include a Hamas withdrawal.

The Middle East—a cradle of history, culture, and geopolitical contradictions—has repeatedly witnessed alluring promises of peace that ultimately sank into the whirlpool of its complex realities. The doctrine of “peace through strength,” which became a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the region during Donald Trump’s second presidential term, relies on displays of military might, economic sanctions, and aggressive diplomacy. It claims to tame rogue actors and bring stability to a turbulent region. However, the history of the Middle East, from the failure of “maximum pressure” policies to the inability of the Abraham Accords to resolve the Palestinian conflict, demonstrates that such an approach not only fails to deliver lasting peace but often fuels instability and heightens tensions.

The strategy of “peace through strength” is based on the assumption that military posturing and economic pressure can alter the behavior of regional players or compel them to cooperate. This approach was tested during Trump’s first term through the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, beginning with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. The goal was to force Iran into negotiations by imposing crippling sanctions, but the outcome was quite the opposite. A 2024 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirms that Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, just a step away from weapons-grade. This advancement not only signals the failure of the pressure campaign to contain Iran’s nuclear program but also escalated regional tensions. Moreover, the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani—intended as a show of strength—did not weaken Iran but rather empowered its proxy forces, including Hezbollah and Iraqi militias. A 2024 UN Security Council report confirms that these groups expanded their operations following Soleimani’s death.

The Abraham Accords, hailed in 2020 as a major achievement of power-driven diplomacy, are another illustration of the limitations of this approach. These agreements, which normalized relations between Israel and countries like the UAE and Bahrain, were largely facilitated through U.S. economic and military incentives. However, they ignored the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leading to increased violence in the West Bank and Gaza. UN reports from 2025 indicate that violence surged in these areas post-Accords, as Palestinians felt sidelined. This underscores that peace achieved by privileging some parties while excluding others is neither durable nor just—it fosters mistrust and unrest. An analysis by the Middle East Institute (March 2025) likewise emphasizes that the marginalization of the Palestinian issue has rendered the Abraham Accords fragile and incapable of withstanding regional shocks.

The Middle East is a region where history, identity, and national interests are so deeply intertwined that power-centric solutions often prove ineffective. Regional rivalries—such as the Iran-Saudi conflict or the Israeli-Palestinian struggle—are rooted in complex historical and identity-based issues that cannot be resolved through military or economic coercion. Unconditional U.S. support for Israel, a hallmark of Trump 2.0’s power-based approach, has eroded public trust across the Arab world. Pew Research Center polls in 2024 show that 72% of respondents in Arab countries perceive U.S. policies as biased and destabilizing. This distrust has only deepened with recent developments, such as Trump’s controversial proposal to relocate Gaza’s population to Egypt and Jordan and transform Gaza into the “Middle East Riviera.” The plan, strongly opposed by Egypt, Jordan, and Palestinian officials, has been condemned not only as impractical and illegal but also as an attempt to redefine the Palestinian issue as a humanitarian crisis rather than a political one.

Trump 2.0’s aggressive policies—including increased U.S. military presence in the region and threats of strikes against Iran—have exacerbated rather than reduced tensions. An April 2025 analysis by the Middle East Institute notes that Trump’s abrupt announcement of “direct” talks with Iran, while simultaneously threatening military action, sowed confusion and distrust among regional allies, including Israel. This oscillation between threats and diplomacy reflects the absence of a coherent strategic framework in Trump’s foreign policy. Additionally, U.S. military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen and support for Israeli operations in Gaza—disregarding their human and political consequences—have further fueled instability. A February 2025 Newsweek analysis warns that such actions have increased the risk of direct conflict between Israel and Iran.

One of the most significant flaws of the “peace through strength” doctrine is its failure to build trust among regional actors. Lasting peace requires frameworks that account for the concerns of all parties involved, but a power-based approach often strengthens one side at the expense of another. The Abraham Accords, by excluding Palestinians, contributed to growing distrust among Arab societies. In contrast, more successful examples—such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel—demonstrate the importance of inclusive diplomacy. That agreement, reached through U.S. mediation and extensive negotiations, resulted in a durable peace because it addressed the concerns of both parties. Similarly, the 2015 JCPOA negotiations, which involved global powers and Iran, effectively curbed Iran’s nuclear program until the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. IAEA reports confirm that Iran complied with the deal until that point. This success highlights the superiority of multilateral diplomacy over unilateral pressure.

The “peace through strength” doctrine has not only failed to resolve Middle Eastern conflicts but has also contributed to economic and political instability. While broad sanctions against Iran pressured its economy, they also strengthened nationalist narratives in Tehran. A 2024 World Bank report shows that Iran has mitigated some of the sanctions’ impact by expanding trade with China and Russia. Furthermore, Trump’s aggressive economic policies—including broad tariffs on regional countries, such as a 17% tariff on Israeli goods—have created economic volatility and eroded allies’ trust. A 2025 Brookings Institution analysis notes that Chinese investments in regional infrastructure have grown significantly since 2018, signaling a decline in U.S. influence in favor of rivals like China and Russia.

The continuation of power-based policies risks further escalation. Statements by U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce—that “Iran’s threat to expel IAEA inspectors contradicts its claim of a peaceful nuclear program”—and the response by Iran’s atomic agency spokesperson Behrouz Kamalvandi—that “no limitations exist on enrichment under the safeguards framework”—highlight the current stalemate. These disagreements underscore the need for diplomatic dialogue, not threats and pressure.

The doctrine of “peace through strength,” by ignoring the complexities of the Middle East, has repeatedly failed. Experiences such as maximum pressure on Iran, the Abraham Accords, and unrealistic proposals like relocating Gaza’s population reveal that military and economic might without inclusive diplomacy leads to instability. The Middle East needs frameworks that consider all sides and focus on building trust. Successful cases like Camp David and the JCPOA show that while multilateral diplomacy is difficult, it can yield lasting results. For the United States, shifting from imposing power to facilitating dialogue would not only reduce tensions but also restore its role as a credible mediator.

Despite the recent peace accord signed by the government of the Central African Republic (CAR) and two rebel groups, the warring parties have continued attacking each other, with unarmed civilians at the receiving end.

The latest clashes occurred on May 15, 2025, between the CAR soldiers and dozens of rebels around the Mambere prefecture of the country. Events leading to the clashes remain unknown, but local media reports reveal that a soldier was injured during the fighting.

The incident came 24 hours after another attack in the town of Ouadda, situated 204 kilometres from Bria in the Haute-Kotto prefecture. There, the armed group, Rassemblement de la Nation Centrafricaine (PRNC), carried out an offensive which resulted in the death of five soldiers and two civilians.

The CAR authorities have not made any declaration concerning the incidents, and the exact circumstances of the clashes and the details of the armed groups involved remain unclear.

The country has been embroiled in a brutal civil war since 2013, when the Séléka, a predominantly Muslim rebel coalition, seized power and ousted President François Bozizé. This marked the beginning of a devastating conflict that has ravaged the country, causing widespread displacement, hunger, and human rights abuses.

Historical grievances played a significant role in the conflict’s escalation. The Séléka rebels accused the government of failing to abide by previous peace agreements, which led to their takeover. Religious and ethnic tensions between the mostly Muslim Séléka rebels and the predominantly Christian Anti-balaka militias have fueled the conflict. 

Over 737,000 Central Africans are registered as refugees, and 632,000 are internally displaced. Half of the population lacks access to sufficient food, and the country ranks worst on the Global Hunger Index. The healthcare system is barely functioning, with a shortage of skilled health workers and medical supplies. The ongoing conflict has had a profound impact on the country’s development and its people. The situation remains complex, with multiple factors contributing to the crisis. 

Qatar’s role as a global mediator and a massive purchase of Boeing airliners were prime areas of focus in official talks between US President Donald Trump and Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.