Today

Venezuela has revoked operating permits for six international airlines after they suspended flights to the country following a United States warning of airspace risk, in the latest point of tension between the two countries.

Last week, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned of a “potentially hazardous situation” in Venezuelan airspace due to a “worsening security situation and heightened military activity”.

While Caracas said the FAA had no jurisdiction over its airspace, the decision led some airlines to indefinitely suspend flights to the South American country from November 24 to 28, Marisela de Loaiza, president of the Airlines Association in Venezuela, said.

The action comes amid worsening tensions between the US and Venezuela over President Donald Trump’s battle against what he calls ‘narco-terrorism’ in the Caribbean.

Since September, the US has carried out at least 21 strikes on vessels it accuses of trafficking drugs, killing at least 83 people. Venezuela has said the strikes amount to murder.

Which airlines has Venezuela banned and why?

On Wednesday night, Venezuela’s civil aviation authority announced that Spain’s Iberia, Portugal’s TAP, Colombia’s Avianca, Chile’s and Brazil’s LATAM, Brazil’s Gol and Turkish Airlines would have their permits revoked.

The authority said the decision was taken against the carriers for joining “the actions of state terrorism promoted by the United States government”.

Before the revocation, Venezuela’s government had issued a 48-hour deadline on Monday for airlines to resume their cancelled flights or risk losing their permits.

Airline carrier Iberia had said it plans to restart flights to Venezuela as soon as full safety conditions are met.

At the same time, Avianca announced in a statement on Wednesday its intention to reschedule cancelled flights to the Venezuelan capital by December 5.

But Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel called the decision to revoke permits “disproportionate”.

“What we have to do is, through our embassy, ​​make the Venezuelan authorities aware that this measure is disproportionate, that we have no intention of cancelling our routes to Venezuela, and that we only did this for security reasons,” he said.

What about other airlines operating in Venezuela?

Spain’s Air Europa and Plus Ultra have also suspended flights to Venezuela, but their permits have not been revoked, with no reason given for the exemption.

Panama’s Copa and its low-cost airline, Wingo, are continuing to operate to Venezuela. Domestic airlines, including the flag-carrier, Conviasa, flying from Venezuela to Colombia, Panama and Cuba are also still in operation.

What is behind US-Venezuela tensions?

Since US President Donald Trump’s return to office in January, tensions between his administration and Venezuela’s government have ramped up.

The US has built up a large military presence off the coast of Venezuela – its most significant military deployment to the Caribbean in decades – to combat what it claims is the trafficking of drugs.

The Trump administration has frequently claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is behind the drug trade, without providing any evidence to support this.

In August, the US government raised its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest from $25m to $50m.

Maduro denies that he is involved in the drug trade.

This week, the US designated the Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) a foreign “terrorist” organisation. It also claims the group is headed by Maduro and a senior figure in his government.

Venezuela’s foreign ministry said it “categorically, firmly and absolutely rejected” the designation, describing it as a “new and ridiculous lie”.

Moreover, the US has long rejected Maduro’s government, calling his election win last year “rigged”. In November 2024, the US recognised Venezuela’s opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez, as the country’s rightful president.

The Venezuelan government has suggested that the drug operation in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific is a cover for the US’s real aim of deposing Maduro from government – something some observers also believe.

Since September, the US has conducted at least 21 strikes on Venezuelan vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, claiming they are drug boats. More than 80 people have been killed, but the Trump administration has provided no evidence for its claims.

Last month, the US military conducted bomber flights up to the coast of Venezuela as part of a training exercise to simulate an attack, and sent the world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R Ford, into the region.

However, in recent days, Trump has shown a willingness to hold direct talks.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters on board his presidential plane, Air Force One, that he “might talk” to Maduro but warned “we can do things the easy way, that’s fine, and if we have to do it the hard way, that’s fine, too”.

What has Trump said about anti-drug land operations in Venezuela?

On Thursday, Trump warned that land operations to combat drug trafficking by land could begin “very soon”.

“You probably noticed that people aren’t wanting to be delivering by sea, and we’ll be starting to stop them by land also,” Trump said in remarks to troops stationed around the globe to mark the US holiday, Thanksgiving.

“The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon.”

“We warned them to stop sending poison to our country,” he added.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is being staged in United States, Canada and Mexico, with Washington, DC hosting December’s draw.

Iran is to boycott next week’s World Cup finals draw in Washington because the United States refused to grant visas to several members of the delegation, the Iranian football federation announced on Friday.

“We have informed FIFA that the decisions taken have nothing to do with sports, and the members of the Iranian delegation will not participate in the World Cup draw,” the federation’s spokesperson told state television.

Iranian sports website Varzesh 3 had claimed on Tuesday that the US had declined to issue visas to several members of the delegation, including the president of the federation, Mehdi Taj.

On Thursday, Taj had denounced the decision as being a political one.

“We have told the head of FIFA, Mr [Gianni] Infantino, that it is purely a political position and that FIFA must tell them [US] to desist from this behaviour,” added Taj.

According to Varzesh 3, four members of the delegation, including Amir Ghalenoei, the coach, had been granted visas for the draw on December 5.

Iran qualified for the sport’s quadrennial showpiece in March, guaranteeing them a fourth successive appearance and seventh in all.

They have yet to progress to the knockout stages, but there was unconfined joy when in the 1998 finals in France, Iran beat the USA 2-1 in their group match.

The US avenged that by beating Iran 1-0 in the 2022 edition.

The US – which is co-hosting the World Cup with Canada and Mexico – and Iran have been at loggerheads for more than four decades.

They had, though, been holding high-level nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington that had begun in April, during which the two sides were at odds over Iran’s right to enrich uranium – which Tehran defends as “inalienable”.

However, they ended when, in mid-June, Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign against Iran, triggering a 12-day war that the US briefly joined, with strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities.

Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies have begun searching the apartment of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak.

One of the two agencies, anti-corruption bureau Nabu, confirmed that its investigative searches had been authorised and said further details would follow.

A corruption scandal has engulfed several figures close to Zelensky, though neither he nor his right-hand man Yermak have been accused of any wrongdoing.

Yermak has played a crucial role in Ukraine’s response to Russia’s full-scale war, and he is Kyiv’s lead negotiator in peace talks with the US. However, his position has become increasingly under threat from critics calling for him to go.

Yermak, 54, confirmed on social media that both Nabu and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor’s office (Sapo) were “conducting procedural actions at my home” and had full access to his apartment, with his lawyers on site.

“From my side, there is full co-operation.”

The searches come at a very awkward moment for Zelensky and his chief of staff, with US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll due to arrive in Kyiv by the end of this week as US President Donald Trump pushes ahead with a draft peace plan. US officials are heading to Moscow next week.

One of the main sticking points for Ukraine is Russia’s demand for Ukraine to hand over the territory it still controls in the eastern Donetsk region. “If they don’t withdraw, we’ll achieve this by force of arms,” Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

Yermak underlined his leading role in the negotiations when he told The Atlantic website hours before news of the searches emerged that “as long as Zelensky is president, no-one should count on us giving up territory. He will not sign away territory”.

However, Putin has been emboldened by minor territorial gains by Russian forces, claiming their offensive “is practically impossible to hold back”. Meanwhile, Zelensky’s own position has been weakened by the domestic corruption scandal, and Russia’s president has long questioned his legitimacy as leader.

In his interview late on Thursday, Yermak acknowledged that pressure on him to stand down was “enormous… The case is fairly loud, and there needs to be an objective and independent investigation without political influence”.

The corruption scandal has rocked Ukraine this month, with investigators linking several leading public figures to an alleged $100m (£75m) embezzlement scandal in the energy sector.

The two anti-corruption agencies, Nabu and Sapo, said they had uncovered an extensive scheme to take kickbacks and influence state-owned companies including state nuclear energy firm Enerhoatom.

A number of suspects have already been charged in the scandal that has outraged public opinion because of allegations that money was diverted from key infrastructure projects vital for safeguarding Ukrainian power supplies.

Russian attacks have badly damaged Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and Ukrainians across the country have had to cope with only a few hours of electricity a day.

Zelensky has already fired two ministers and several suspects have been detained in the scandal. One of the president’s former business associates, Timur Mindich, has fled the country.

He was co-owner of the TV studio where Zelensky’s acting career took off before he was elected president.

Ukraine has mounted a fierce defence of Pokrovsk for the fifth straight week since Russia’s concerted offensive began to take its eastern city, while at the same time it tries to finesse a Russian-inspired United States peace plan heavily criticised by US lawmakers.

The Russian Ministry of Defence said on Monday its “assault groups of the 2nd Army have completely liberated the Gornyak and Shakhtersky microdistricts in Pokrovsk.

On Tuesday, it said its forces were fighting in the Vostochny and Zapadny districts of Myrnohrad, to the east of Pokrovsk.

Both cities, in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, lie within an envelope which Russian forces have gradually tried to seal shut. Supplies and reinforcements can currently only reach Ukrainian forces from the west – and Russia claims to have effective fire control over those supply routes.

Ukrainian officials insisted the defence of Pokrovsk was still very much a contest. “Our positions are held in the centre of Pokrovsk, shooting battles continue, and the enemy fails to consolidate,” said Ukraine’s head of the Center for Countering Disinformation Andriy Kovalenko on Sunday, citing the 7th Air Assault Brigade fighting there.

Ukraine has evidently strained its resources to defend the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad enclave, whereas the concentration of Russian offensive forces in Pokrovsk has not compromised their ability to assault elsewhere.

During November 20-27, Russia claimed to have seized Petropavlovka in Kharkiv, Novoselivka, Maslyakovka, Yampol, Stavki, Zvanovka, Petrovskoye, Ivanopolye and Vasyukovka in Donetsk, Tikhoye and Otradnoye in Dniperopetrovsk, and Novoye Zaporozhiye and Zatishye in Zaporizhia.

The Russian forces’ recent rate of advance has amounted to about half a dozen villages a week.

But Ukraine disputes some of Russia’s claims.

On November 20, Russian chief of staff Valery Gerasimov said his forces had seized the city of Kupiansk in Ukraine’s northern Kharkiv region, and were setting upon retreating Ukrainian units on the left bank of the Oskil River.

But Kovalenko replied on the Telegram messaging service: “Russia did NOT occupy Kupiansk. Gerasimov is just a liar,” and he repeated the claim a week later.

Ukraine has also had successes on the ground, according to its commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrskii. “Despite enemy pressure, the Defence Forces of Ukraine managed to carry out counteroffensive actions in the Dobropillia direction from the end of August to October this year,” he said, referring to a failed Russian flanking manoeuvre towards a town northwest of Pokrovsk.

“As a result, the units split the enemy’s offensive group and liberated over 430 square kilometres [166 square miles] north of Pokrovsk. Russian losses amounted to more than 13,000 killed and wounded.”

Russia also kept up pressure on Ukraine’s rear, launching 1,169 drones and 25 missiles at its cities during the week of November 20-26. Ukraine downed 85 percent of the drones and 14 of the missiles, but Zelenskyy called for more short- and medium-range defences.

Questionable diplomacy

Europe, Ukraine and members of the US Congress have all pushed back against a 28-point peace plan presented by the US administration of Donald Trump last week, describing it as too Russia-friendly.

In its original form, the plan granted key points that Russia has demanded. That included a promise from Ukraine never to join NATO and the surrendering of almost all the territory Russia has taken by force, along with the unoccupied remainder of Donetsk. The US and Ukraine’s other Western allies would have to recognise those annexations as legal.

Ukraine would have to hold an election within 100 days of the plan’s signature – one that Russia seems to believe would unseat Zelenskyy.

Russia has also demanded that Ukraine effectively disarm. The 28-point plan suggests reducing its armed forces by about a third, to 600,000 personnel.

“Right now is one of the hardest moments in our history,” Zelenskyy told the Ukrainian people after seeing the plan, describing it as a choice between “either the loss of our dignity or the risk of losing a key partner”.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Roger Wicker said in a statement: “This so-called ‘peace plan’ has real problems, and I am highly skeptical it will achieve peace.”

Polish Premier Donald Tusk politely said on social media: “It would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created.”

The plan drew heavily from a Russian non-paper submitted to the White House in October, said the Reuters news agency.

“Trump’s 28-point plan, which we have, enshrines the key understandings reached during the Alaska summit,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters.

“I would say not all, but many provisions of this plan, they seem quite acceptable to us,” Putin aide Yury Ushakov told the TASS Russian state news agency.

The United Kingdom, France and Germany drafted a counter-proposal on Sunday, and a Ukrainian delegation led by former Defence Minister Rustem Umerov met with US negotiators under Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Geneva to discuss both documents.

Europe ruled out accepting territorial exchanges resulting from aggression, and suggested territorial negotiations begin from the line of contact without prior Ukrainian concessions. It also suggested Ukraine maintain a strong army of no fewer than 800,000 people, and receive an effective NATO security guarantee.

Their joint statement on Monday simply said they would “continue intensive work”, with final decisions to be made by Trump and Zelenskyy.

Much had been done to refine the original 28 points into a workable agreement, said Zelenskyy. “Now the list of necessary steps to end the war can become doable,” he told Ukrainians somewhat cryptically, describing the work that remained as “very challenging”.

Ukraine has pushed for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump before December to thrash out the plan’s final form, but on Tuesday, Bloomberg released transcripts of a leaked telephone conversation between Trump confidant Steve Witkoff and Putin aide Yury Ushakov, in which Witkoff advised Ushakov to have Putin call Trump before Zelenskyy had a chance to meet him. Witkoff suggested that Putin flatter Trump as a peacemaker to win his favour and shape the peace plan directly with him.

That leak prompted opposition to Witkoff travelling to Moscow next week to discuss the reworked plan with Russian officials. The White House said he is to replace General Keith Kellogg, who resigned as mediator for Ukraine after seeing the original 28-point plan.

“It is clear that Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations. Would a Russian paid agent do less than he?” wrote Republican Congressman Don Bacon on social media.

For those who oppose the Russian invasion and want to see Ukraine prevail as a sovereign & democratic country, it is clear that Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations. Would a Russian paid agent do less than he? He should be fired. https://t.co/dxMsda0YV5

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) November 25, 2025

In his first extensive remarks on the peace proposal, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin backed away from an agreement with Ukraine, saying, “Signing documents with the Ukrainian leadership is pointless,” because Zelenskyy was a president who had outlived his mandate.

“I believe that the Ukrainian authorities made a fundamental and strategic mistake when they succumbed to the fear of participating in the presidential elections,” he said, referring to the spring of 2025, when Zelenskyy’s four-year term expired.

Zelenskyy was elected in 2019, and the parliament has twice extended his tenure under the constitutional provision of a national emergency.

Putin said the 28 points did not amount to a peace treaty, calling them “a set of questions that were proposed for discussion and final wording”.

“In general, we agree that this can be the basis for future agreements,” Putin said.

The government announces the closing of all government offices and schools as weather conditions grow worse.

Sri Lanka has closed government offices and schools as the death toll from floods and landslides across the country has risen to 56, with more than 600 houses damaged, according to officials.

Sri Lanka began grappling with severe weather last week, and the conditions worsened on Thursday with heavy downpours that flooded homes, fields and roads, and triggered landslides across the country.

More than 25 people were killed on Thursday in landslides in the central mountainous tea-growing regions of Badulla and Nuwara Eliya, which is about 300km (186 miles) east of the capital, Colombo.

Another 21 people were missing and 14 were injured in the Badulla and Nuwara Eliya areas, according to the government’s disaster management centre, quoted by The Associated Press news agency.

Others died in landslides in different parts of the country.

Daily life heavily impacted

As the weather conditions grew worse, the government announced the closing of all government offices and schools on Friday.

Due to heavy rains, most reservoirs and rivers have overflowed, blocking roads. Authorities stopped passenger trains and closed roads in many parts of the country after rocks, mud and trees fell on roads and railway tracks, which were also flooded in some areas.

Local television showed an air force helicopter rescuing three people stranded on the roof of a house surrounded by floods on Thursday, while the navy and police used boats to transport residents.

Footage on Thursday also showed a car being swept away by floodwaters near the eastern town of Ampara, leaving three passengers dead.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko recently announced his intention to pay an official visit to Myanmar. Under other circumstances, this visit might have gone unnoticed, but amid the Myanmar crisis, every visit by a foreign leader to Naypyidaw attracts attention. According to Lukashenko, the trip will be part of a larger international tour that will also include Oman, Algeria, and Kyrgyzstan. The two leaders have already met four times in 2025: during Myanmar President Senior General Min Aung Hlaing’s visit to Minsk in March, during Victory Day celebrations in Moscow in May, during the Eurasian Economic Forum in June, and at the PLA parade in Beijing in September. This is a reciprocal visit intended to strengthen relations between Belarus and Myanmar.

The signing of 18 agreements in various fields is planned, including the mutual waiver of tourist visas, a cooperation agreement between the Myanmar Space Agency and the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, an agreement on mutual legal assistance, and so on. Expect Myanmar opposition media to talk about Belarusian educational programs for Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s armed forces) officers and the supply of Belarusian UAVs. For now, all of this fits the “pariah in arms” pattern: the familiar cooperation of two regimes suffering from sanctions pressure and accused of human rights violations. But could something more lie behind Lukashenko’s visit? And can Myanmar’s military leadership learn lessons from its Belarusian partner’s strategy? Let’s discuss the less obvious aspects of Myanmar-Belarus relations.

Lukashenko as a mediator in Ukraine and… Myanmar?

Lukashenko is often portrayed as a Russian proxy, but in practice, Belarusian politics is quite complex. A charismatic former collective farm director, Lukashenko came to power in the 1994 presidential election. His victory came amid a wave of nostalgia for the USSR that swept Belarusian society, which was facing the costs of establishing a free market: declining production, rising prices, rampant crime, and a profoundly uncertain future. At the time, the relatively young populist boldly criticized the nomenklatura, which the people had grown tired of.

At the same time, Lukashenko clearly declared himself a supporter of integration with Russia and an opponent of Belarusian pro-Western nationalism. He kept his promises: the population became more socially secure, organized crime groups were defeated, and the trend toward forced “Belarus-ization” was halted (most ethnic Belarusians prefer to communicate in Russian in everyday life and are skeptical of the opposition’s calls to switch to Belarusian).

At the same time, Lukashenko has always staunchly defended the independence of the Belarusian state and has sometimes even clashed with Moscow. In the 2000s, high-profile “energy wars” erupted between Minsk and Moscow. In 2006, after the Russian state-owned company Gazprom revoked preferential terms for oil supplies to Belarus, the outraged Belarusian leadership retaliated: it imposed additional duties on the transit of Russian oil and began pumping oil from the pipeline. Moscow was forced to back down.

In 2010, Russia demanded that Lukashenko pay off its natural gas debts, after which Lukashenko reminded Russia of its own debts. A series of anti-Lukashenko propaganda films was shown on Russian television. The conflict was resolved through mutual debt repayment, but Minsk could claim victory by upholding its strategic autonomy in the post-Soviet space. In his campaign against Gazprom, the Belarusian leader stoked anti-oligarchic sentiment in Russia and, as a result, gained popularity among the left-wing opposition. For a long time, dreams of a merger between Russia and Belarus were popular among this group, with Lukashenko being tipped as the president of the union state. Among older Russians nostalgic for the Soviet era, Lukashenko rivaled Putin in approval ratings.

“Multi-vectorism” has become the hallmark of Belarusian foreign policy. Minsk has responded to the growing tensions between Russia and the EU/USA head-on, maintaining contacts with all stakeholders. During the first phase of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in 2014-2020, Lukashenko ambitiously positioned Belarus as a neutral “Slavic” platform for Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. A Belarusian diplomatic triumph was the adoption of agreements in Minsk in 2014-2015, involving not only Russia and Ukraine, but also Germany and France. At the same time, despite his Russophile rhetoric, Lukashenko continued to sell diesel fuel (produced from Russian oil!) to the Ukrainian armed forces.

Lukashenko immersed himself in multi-vector diplomacy and overlooked the changing mood of Belarusian society – people were growing tired of the uncontested leader. Conviction that the 2020 presidential election results had been rigged brought people out onto the streets; mass protests engulfed the country, forcing Lukashenko to make temporary concessions, only to later unleash an avalanche of brutal repression on the protesters.

It was at this time, amid the threat of revolution and moral condemnation from the West, that Minsk decided to move closer to Moscow. However, domestically, Belarusian propaganda, in addition to the standard accusations against the US and EU of supporting the opposition, declared the protests a “Russian oligarchs’ plot to overthrow the legitimate president.” Even in a situation where only Moscow could ensure Lukashenko’s continued power, he preferred to retain the freedom to maneuver in his own interests.

Contacts between Washington and Minsk continue, and Trump’s team appears to be closer to mutual understanding with the Belarusians than with the Russians (the Belarusian president personally meets Americans and invariably ends negotiations with a vodka-fueled feast). At the same time, Belarus’s active diplomacy in the post-Soviet space is noteworthy, where Minsk is particularly friendly with Azerbaijan (despite its clashes with Moscow) and the countries of Central Asia. Beijing is also emphatically lenient in its relations with Lukashenko, who emphasizes that, unlike other former Soviet countries, Belarus has retained a reverence for its communist legacy.

The Belarusian multi-vector model for Naypyidaw

Lukashenko arrives in Naypyitaw at a time when the Myanmar government is desperate for international recognition. It’s hard to say whether the Myanmar generals ever considered using their Belarusian partner as a go-between to establish ties with Trump’s team. However, this approach clearly seems preferable to multi-million dollar investments in American lobbying firms, which have so far yielded no results. A new round of talks on Ukraine involving Belarus will take place in December, and Myanmar could very well use this opportunity to use Lukashenko to generate positive interest in the White House.

Beyond the short-term benefits of friendship with Minsk, Myanmar could learn from Belarus the art of multi-vector foreign policy. The configuration of Russian-Belarusian relations is reminiscent of China-Myanmar relations: both Belarus and Myanmar are “small nations” located within the sphere of influence of their larger neighbors, Russia and China, but at the same time striving for strategic autonomy. Chinese infrastructure projects in Myanmar, in particular the oil and natural gas pipeline from Yunnan Province to the port of Kyaukphyu in Rakhine State, designed to provide China with access to the Indian Ocean, can be compared to Russian energy infrastructure in Belarus (the Druzhba pipeline). Minsk can act as a senior mentor to Naypyidaw in defending its energy independence from China.

Stabilizing Myanmar Based on the Belarusian Experience: Pros and Cons

There are vast differences between Myanmar and Belarus – in history, traditions, religion, and ethnic composition. Nevertheless, Naypyidaw could borrow some Belarusian wisdom not only in foreign policy but also in domestic policy.

Mass protests in Belarus in 2020 were sparked by obvious vote rigging in favor of Lukashenko. Paradoxically, the 2020 elections in Myanmar were held under the majoritarian system adopted in Belarus and resulted in a constitutional transfer of power in favor of the military due to electoral fraud by the NLD. The political regimes of Myanmar and Belarus have different backgrounds and structures: the populist Lukashenko is more reminiscent of Aung San Suu Kyi, while the Belarusian army lacks independence and is incapable of military coups. But most importantly, Minsk and Naypyidaw are united by common challenges: internal instability fueled from abroad. Significantly, NUG representatives are simultaneously establishing contacts with the Belarusian government-in-exile of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya.

Lukashenko successfully overcame the critical moments of the 2020-2021 crisis and, at the cost of systematic human rights violations—something he had done before, by the way—defeated the opposition. What’s interesting here is not the moral aspect of the issue, but the regime’s survival strategy. Lukashenko alternately used carrots and sticks, and alongside repression, he recruited media opposition figures. A well-known example is that of radical opponent of the regime Roman Protasevich, who, after his unexpected arrest, found common ground with the regime and became its sincere defender. This demonstrates the potential for the Myanmar government to exploit loyal elements of the former NLD and even members of the NUG and PDF who agreed to cooperate with the regime.

On the other hand, it should be remembered that in a number of respects, the Myanmar regime is more lenient than the Belarusian one: several large-scale amnesties for political crimes were carried out by the “junta” without prior agreements with the United States. Lukashenko released several dozen of his opponents with guarantees that sanctions would be lifted; the Myanmar military has released thousands of far more dangerous convicts, guided not only by political expediency but also by the Buddhist ideal of compassion (there is no contradiction here, as Buddhism underlies realpolitik in Myanmar). This ideal is widely accepted by all Burmese, regardless of their views on current politics. Unlike the Belarusians, who underwent the brainwashing of communist atheism in the 20th century and practically lost their national identity, the Burmese have preserved their traditional culture, religion, and language and are able to resist the dual pressures of the West and China.

Conclusion

Learning from the Belarusian experience, Myanmar’s foreign policy is returning to its usual course. Long before independent Belarus appeared on the world map in 1991, Myanmar had already pursued a multi-vector policy. It is significant that even when relations with China’s Maoist regime deteriorated to the lowest point in the 1960s, due to Beijing’s support for the Communist Party of Burma (CPB), Ne Win’s government refrained from entering into anti-Chinese alliances with the United States or the USSR. This was a far-sighted decision. To a certain extent, modern Belarus could become Myanmar’s equivalent of Yugoslavia during the Cold War: both under U Nu’s democratic system and under Ne Win’s military dictatorship, the neutralist diplomacy of Titoism was admired.

While Republican and Democratic representatives repeat stereotypical misconceptions about Myanmar learned from Burmese exiles, the generals are gradually bringing the country out of isolation. The most important thing for the Myanmar people to remember is that their nation, the heir to ancient Buddhist kingdoms, has never been and never will be in the service of external powers: the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians, or anyone else. Lukashenko’s visit provides an opportunity to creatively develop the potential of Myanmar diplomacy.

Aman says it will take ‘all available measures’ to stop Russian authorities from recruiting its citizens to fight in war.

Jordan has demanded that Russian authorities stop illegally recruiting its citizens after two Jordanians were killed fighting in the Russian military.

Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the warning on Thursday against Moscow and external “entities” working online to recruit people on Moscow’s behalf.

The ministry did not mention Russia’s almost four-year-long war on Ukraine, where thousands of paid foreign fighters have joined Moscow’s side.

In a statement shared on X, the Jordanian Foreign Ministry said it would “take all available measures” to end the further recruitment of Jordanians and called for Moscow to terminate the contracts of its currently enlisted citizens.

The recruitment is a violation of both Jordanian domestic and international law, the ministry said, and “endangers the lives of [its] citizens”.

The statement did not provide any further identifying information or say where or when the two citizens were killed, though Russia has a track record of recruiting foreigners to fight in Ukraine.

Ukraine says Moscow has recruited at least 18,000 foreign fighters from 128 countries, according to figures shared by Brigadier General Dmytro Usov. In a post on the Telegram messaging app, he said another 3,388 foreigners have died fighting for Russia.

Usov did not provide a breakdown of the foreign soldiers fighting in Ukraine for Russia, but the vast majority were likely from North Korea.

The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations said Pyongyang sent between 14,000 and 15,000 soldiers to fight for Russia in 2024, citing Western officials.

Moscow has also recruited at least 1,400 Africans from more than 30 countries, using methods ranging from deception to duress, according to Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Sybiha.

Sybiha said previously that signing a contract with the Russian military was “equivalent to signing a death sentence” for foreign recruits.

“Foreign citizens in the Russian army have a sad fate. Most of them are immediately sent to the so-called ‘meat assaults,’ where they are quickly killed,” Sybiha said in a November 9 post on X.

“The Russian command understands that there will be no accountability for the killed foreigner, so they are treated as second-rate, expendable human material,” he said.

At least 10 injured as traffic and trains disrupted amid severe weather and rising floodwaters across multiple regions.

Landslides and floods triggered by heavy rains have caused more than 40 deaths in Sri Lanka, where the authorities have stopped passenger trains and closed roads in some parts of the country, officials say.

The government’s Disaster Management Centre on Thursday said 25 of the reported deaths occurred in the mountainous tea-growing regions of Badulla and Nuwara Eliya in central Sri Lanka about 300km (186 miles) east of the capital, Colombo.

Another 21 people were missing due to landslides in the same areas while 10 people were injured, the centre said.

Sri Lanka began experiencing severe weather last week, made worse by downpours over the weekend that wreaked havoc by flooding homes, fields and roads.

Reservoirs and rivers have overflowed, blocking roads. Some key roads connecting the provinces have been closed, officials said.

Authorities stopped trains in some areas in the mountainous region after rocks, mud and trees fell onto railway tracks. Local television showed workers removing the debris. In some areas, floods have inundated the tracks.

Local television showed an air force helicopter rescuing three people stranded on the roof of a house marooned by floods while navy and police used boats to transport residents.

Footage also showed a car being swept away by floodwaters near the eastern town of Ampara, about 410km (256 miles) east of Colombo, killing three passengers.

This week’s weather-related toll is the highest since June last year when 26 people were killed due to heavy rains. In December, 17 people were killed by flooding and landslides.

The worst flooding this century was in June 2003 when 254 people were killed.

Sri Lanka depends on seasonal monsoon rains for irrigation and hydroelectricity, but experts have warned that the country faces more frequent floods due to the climate crisis.

Here are the key events from day 1,373 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here’s where things stand on Friday, November 28.

Fighting

• Russian forces have “completely surrounded” the embattled Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk and control 70 percent of it, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
• Putin also said that once Ukrainian troops withdraw from their positions in key areas, then the fighting will stop. But if they do not, then Russian forces will achieve their objectives by force.
• The Russian president added that the pace of Russia’s advance in all directions on the front line was “noticeably increasing”.
• Oleksandr Syrskii, Ukraine’s top commander, painted a different picture, saying on social media that Ukrainian troops had been blocking attempts by Russian forces to stage new assaults on Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad. Syrskii also said that Russia had been forced to bring reserve forces into the fight.
• Russia’s air defences shot down 118 Ukrainian drones overnight, including 52 over Russia’s Belgorod region bordering Ukraine, the Ministry of Defence in Moscow said.

Peace process

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukrainian delegations will meet with those from the United States this week to work out a formula discussed at talks in Geneva to bring peace and provide security guarantees for Kyiv.
• Putin said that the draft peace proposals discussed by the US and Ukraine could become the basis of future agreements to end Moscow’s war on Ukraine, but if not, that Russia would fight on.
• Putin also called the Ukrainian leadership illegitimate and said it was senseless to sign any peace documents with them.
• The Russian president said the Ukrainian leadership lost legitimacy after refusing to hold elections when Zelenskyy’s elected term expired. Kyiv says it cannot hold elections while under martial law and defending its territory against Russian attacks.
• Zelenskyy will not agree to give up land to Russia in exchange for peace, the Ukrainian president’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, told the US magazine The Atlantic.
• “As long as Zelenskyy is president, no one should count on us giving up territory. He will not sign away territory,” Yermak said.
• German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that even after a peace agreement with Russia, Ukraine will need strong armed forces and security guarantees, while no territorial concessions should be forced on the country.
• “We view the efforts of the US government to find a solution here very positively. However, we also say that the security interests of Europeans and also the security interests of Ukraine must be safeguarded,” Merz said.
• Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Ukraine’s membership in NATO remains unacceptable to Moscow.
• “For us, the threat is still the expansion of NATO,” she told reporters. “NATO’s desire to pull Ukraine into its orbit remains a threat to us.”

Sanctions

• The United Kingdom issued a temporary licence allowing companies to continue doing business with Lukoil International, a subsidiary of Russia’s sanctioned Lukoil, which is based in Austria. The licence, effective until February 26, permits payments and other transactions under certain conditions, including that funds due to Lukoil remain frozen.
• Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said the European Union’s plan to use frozen Russian state assets to help Ukraine stay solvent could endanger the chances for a potential peace deal to end the nearly four-year war.
• “Hastily moving forward on the proposed reparations loan scheme would have, as a collateral damage, that we as EU are effectively preventing reaching an eventual peace deal,” De Wever said in a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, seen by the Financial Times.
• Putin said Russia is preparing a package of retaliatory measures in response to potential seizures of Russian assets in Europe. He warned that any move to confiscate Russian assets would be “a theft of property” and harm the global financial system.

Regional security

• A Ukrainian man suspected of coordinating the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in 2022 has arrived in Germany after Italy’s top court approved his extradition last week, German federal prosecutors said. The explosions that destroyed the pipeline in the Baltic Sea three years ago largely severed Russian gas transit to Europe.
• Hungarian President Viktor Orban said he plans to hold talks on Friday to ensure that Hungary gets adequate Russian crude and gas supplies, which would also allow it to provide crude to neighbouring Serbia.
• Russia said it will shut the Polish consulate in Irkutsk at the end of December in retaliation for Warsaw’s decision to close the Russian consulate in Gdansk.

Russian politics

• A Russian military court sentenced eight men to life in prison over their purported role in a deadly Ukrainian truck bomb attack on the bridge that links southern Russia to Crimea.
• The eight men, convicted on terrorism charges, were accused of being part of an organised criminal group that helped Ukraine carry out the bombing.
• Ukraine’s SBU domestic intelligence agency claimed responsibility for the attack, which in October 2022 ripped through part of the 19km (11.8-mile) bridge, killing five people and damaging what was a key supply route for Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.

BBC

Handout

‘Was it as glamorous as it looked? No!’

ITV/ Shutterstock

‘I had no idea why I picked Sue – it was just eenie meeny miny moe’

Handout

‘Blind Date Wedding of the Year’

Handout/Alex and Sue Tatham

ITV/ Shutterstock

‘I am just lucky to have picked her’

Handout/Alex and Sue Tatham

In the world’s most fragile states, war is no longer merely a political tragedy, it is an economic opportunity for those positioned to profit. From the mountains of northern Myanmar to the gold fields of Sudan, a common pattern has emerged: when governance collapses, external powers rush in to secure the minerals, metals, and strategic commodities that the global economy demands. These regions become places where human suffering and environmental destruction become collateral for uninterrupted flows of resources. Two cases stand out in late 2025, Myanmar’s rare earth boom, fueled by Chinese demand, and Sudan’s gold boom, powered by the United Arab Emirates, together reveal a disturbing truth about the global marketplace; world’s green and gold transitions are being built atop the ruins of countries trapped in conflict.

Myanmar: The Human Cost of a Resource Rush

In early 2025, a young man named Sian traveled deep into the mountains of Shan State, Myanmar, desperate for work in a country where the formal economy has collapsed and nearly half the population lives on less than two dollars a day. He was lured by rumors of wages unheard of in today’s Myanmar, $1,400 a month at new rare-earth mining sites run by Chinese companies in territory controlled by the United Wa State Army (UWSA), the most powerful of Myanmar’s ethnic armed groups. After hours riding a motorbike through dense forest, he arrived at a mine and was hired for a daily pay of about $21. His job was brutal: drilling boreholes and installing pipes for in-situ leaching, a method that involves pumping acidic solutions directly into mountainsides to dissolve and extract elements like dysprosium and terbium, metals that are vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines, advanced radar systems, and nearly every technology central to the green-energy revolution.

The process leaves behind poisoned rivers, contaminated soil, landslides, respiratory diseases, and entire villages unlivable. Researchers and civil society organizations have documented extensive damage: deforestation, chemically burned waterways, collapsed hillsides, and workers buried in mud after heavy rainfall liquefies the weakened terrain. “The toxic effects of rare-earth mining are devastating,” says political geographer Jasnea Sarma. “These communities endure the harm so that others may benefit.”

Yet the industry is thriving. China has cracked down on domestic rare-earth extraction due to environmental damage, but it has not reduced its demand. As a result, the extraction simply shifted across the border into Myanmar, where environmental regulations are weak, labor is cheap, and local armed groups, desperate for revenue, grant Chinese firms access in exchange for payments or profit-sharing.

Satellite imagery analyzed by Myanmar Witness and the Stimson Center shows hundreds of rare-earth mining sites exploding across Shan State, particularly in areas controlled by the UWSA and other China-aligned ethnic armies. Chinese customs data confirms the trend: between 2017 and 2024, roughly two-thirds of China’s rare-earth imports came from Myanmar. In effect, Myanmar has become the hidden engine of the world’s tech economy and its most toxic dumping ground.

For villagers, this boom is a slow-moving catastrophe. People report respiratory ailments, skin rashes from chemical exposure, and contaminated water sources. The deadliest risks are landslides triggered by aggressive deforestation and chemical injection into the hillsides. A 2024 study of rare-earth mining areas in Kachin State found extreme levels of ammonia, radioactive elements, and dissolved heavy metals in local waterways, conditions researchers describe as “entirely unsuitable for human consumption or agriculture.”

What makes Myanmar particularly vulnerable is not just poverty or geography, but political breakdown. Since the 2021 military coup shattered national governance, armed groups have expanded their autonomy, Chinese companies have expanded their presence, and Myanmar’s natural resources have been strip-mined with almost no oversight. In this vacuum, the global economy finds a steady supply of strategic minerals at the lowest possible cost, while local communities absorb the full environmental and human toll

How the UAE is Cashing In on Sudan’s War

If Myanmar reveals how civil wars feed the green-energy transition, Sudan reveals how they feed the financial one. Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a brutal war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Amid mass displacement, ethnic cleansing in Darfur, widespread starvation, and one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, another story has quietly unfolded: the UAE’s deepening role as the central hub for Sudan’s conflict gold.

Sudan is Africa’s third-largest gold producer, and gold has become the lifeblood of the RSF’s war machine. Investigations by the UN, Global Witness, and multiple governments show that the UAE has been the primary destination for Sudanese gold for years, even as the war intensified. Much of this gold is smuggled out of conflict zones in Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile, which are areas where the RSF maintains control through massacres and forced displacement. Once the gold reaches Dubai, it is refined, laundered through opaque supply chains, and sold into global markets.

The UAE denies wrongdoing, but the pattern is unmistakable. Gold shipments spike when fighting escalates. The RSF’s ability to sustain operations depends heavily on gold revenues. And the UAE’s own global gold-trading infrastructure, built on lax regulations, low taxes, and discreet financial systems, makes it the ideal partner for armed groups seeking to convert looted resources into weapons and cash.

Sudan mirrors Myanmar in a darker way: where Myanmar supplies the materials for the world’s green future, Sudan supplies the materials for its financial present, stabilizing gold markets, supporting global luxury demand, and solidifying the UAE’s status as an international trading powerhouse. In both cases, the profits flow outward, while the devastation remains local.

Foreign Wars as a Business Model

The parallels between Myanmar and Sudan reveal a broader pattern of 21st-century extraction economics. War and political collapse weaken regulation, eliminate oversight, and create desperate labor pools. Armed groups become local gatekeepers, selling access to mines or smuggling routes. Foreign corporations and governments capitalize on the chaos to secure strategic resources cheaply.

In Myanmar, ethnic armed groups benefit from mining revenues while China secures rare earths vital for its technology sector. In Sudan, the RSF funds its military operations through gold smuggling while the UAE strengthens its global commodities market.

This model is not new. But the urgency of the green transition and the volatility of global commodity markets have made it more aggressive than ever. The world wants cheap inputs for clean energy, financial reserves, and technological superiority. Conflict zones deliver them, evidently at enormous human cost.

The Moral Cost of The Green and Gold Transitions

The stories of Sian in Shan State and the civilians trapped in Sudan’s war zones expose a deeper contradiction at the heart of global development. The world says it wants sustainable energy and ethical supply chains. Yet the materials needed for these transitions are often sourced from places where sustainability and ethics are impossible.

Myanmar, Sudan, Congo, Bolivia, and other resource-rich conflict states are the hidden foundation of modern life in first world countries. Their suffering directly creates the conveniences and technologies that wealthier countries take for granted.

Until the international community demands transparency, enforces sanctions on conflict-linked commodities, and insists that the green future not be contradictorily built on burned earth, Myanmar and Sudan will remain cautionary tales and examples of what happens when the world’s hunger for resources meets its willingness to ignore suffering.

Senegal’s Foreign Ministry says Umaro Sissoco Embalo arrived in the country a day after he was deposed in a military coup.

Guinea-Bissau’s deposed president, Umaro Sissoco Embalo, has arrived in Senegal, the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed, a day after a group of military officers in Guinea-Bissau seized power in a coup.

Senegal’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Thursday night that Embalo had arrived in Senegal after authorities engaged with actors in Guinea-Bissau to try to secure his release.

Embalo reached Senegal on board an aircraft chartered by the Senegalese government, it said.

“The government of the Republic of Senegal reaffirms its readiness to work alongside ECOWAS, the African Union and all relevant partners, with a view to supporting dialogue, stability and the rapid restoration of constitutional order and democratic legitimacy in this brotherly nation,” the statement said.

Embalo was deposed on Wednesday after military officers announced they had seized “total control” of Guinea-Bissau ahead of the expected release of presidential election results in the West African nation.

Embalo had been vying for re-election against his main challenger, Fernando Dias. Both had declared victory ahead of the release of the provisional results.

But the main opposition PAIGC party was barred from presenting a presidential candidate, raising criticism from civil society groups, which said the election was illegitimate.

Dubbing themselves the “High Military Command for the Restoration of Order”, the military officers read out a statement on television on Wednesday, declaring that they had ordered the immediate suspension of the electoral process “until further notice”.

They also ordered the closure of Guinea-Bissau’s borders and an overnight curfew.

On Thursday, General Horta Inta-A was sworn in as the country’s transitional president, defending the military takeover by saying that there had been “sufficient [evidence] to justify the operation”.

But the coup – one of several to hit Guinea-Bissau since the country gained independence from Portugal in 1974 – has spurred widespread concern, including from regional bodies.

The chairperson of the African Union Commission condemned the situation earlier on Thursday, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Embalo and all other detained officials.

Mahmoud Ali Youssouf also urged “all parties to exercise the utmost restraint in order to prevent any further deterioration of the situation”.

Voters in the Central American nation of Honduras are set to go to the polls for Sunday’s general election, as they weigh concerns ranging from corruption to national and economic security.

The current president, Xiomara Castro of the left-wing Liberty and Refoundation (LIBRE) party, is limited by law to one term in office.

But the race to succeed Castro is slated to be a nail-biter. Three candidates have surged to the front of the race, but none has taken a definitive lead in the polls.

They include Rixi Moncada from the LIBRE party; Nasry Asfura from the right-wing National Party; and Salvador Nasralla from the centrist Liberal Party.

The race, however, has been marred by accusations of fraud and election-tampering.

Those allegations have raised tensions in Honduras, whose political system is still recovering from the legacy of a United States-backed 2009 military coup that was followed by a period of repression and contested elections.

“Honduras is heading into these elections amid mounting political pressure on electoral authorities, public accusations of fraud from across the political spectrum, and paralysis within key electoral bodies,” said Juanita Goebertus, director of the Americas division at the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

“These dynamics have created real uncertainty about the integrity of the process.”

Who are the candidates, what will voting look like, and what are the stakes of the election? We answer these questions and more in this brief explainer.

When is the election?

The election will take place in a single round of voting, held on November 30. The candidate with the most votes will be declared the winner and should take office on January 25, 2026.

How long is the presidential term?

Each president may serve a single four-year term in office.

Who is eligible to vote?

There are about 6.5 million Hondurans eligible to cast a ballot, including about 400,000 living abroad in the United States. That group, however, is restricted to voting on the presidential candidates.

Voting is obligatory in Honduras, but there are no penalties for those who do not participate.

Who are the candidates?

Three of the five presidential candidates have emerged as main challengers in the race.

Competing as the candidate for the left-leaning LIBRE Party is Rixi Moncada, a close confidant of President Castro who has served first as her finance minister, from 2022 to 2024, and later as her secretary of defence.

Moncada resigned that position in May to pursue her presidential bid.

If elected, she has pledged to “democratise the economy”, pushing back against efforts to privatise state services. Her platform also promises greater access to credit for small businesses and a crackdown on corporate corruption.

Another contender is Salvador Nasralla, a familiar face in Honduran politics. A candidate for the centrist Liberal Party, he is running for president for a fourth time.

A 72-year-old with a background in civil engineering, Nasralla formerly served as Castro’s vice president before resigning in April 2024.

Nasralla has said that he will streamline government functions while seeking to bring informal workers, who make up a large portion of the country’s labour force, into the formal economy.

Finally, running as the candidate for the right-leaning National Party is Nasry “Tito” Asfura.

Previously a mayor and representative for the capital of Tegucigalpa, Asfura has said he will run the country as an “administrator” and “executor”, promoting pro-business policies to attract investment.

How have foreign relations played a role in the election?

On foreign relations, Moncada is expected to continue her predecessor’s pursuit of closer ties with countries such as China and support for other left-wing figures in the region.

Both Nasralla and Asfura have said they will orient Honduras towards the US and its allies, including Israel and Taiwan.

On Wednesday, in the waning days of the presidential race, US President Donald Trump expressed his support for Asfura.

Trump also cast Honduras’s presidential race as part of his broader campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, blaming the South American leader for drug trafficking and the establishment of left-wing governments across the region.

“Democracy is on trial in the coming Elections in the beautiful country of Honduras on November 30th. Will Maduro and his Narcoterrorists take over another country like they have taken over Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela?” Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social.

“The man who is standing up for Democracy, and fighting against Maduro, is Tito Asfura.”

What do the polls say?

Though pre-election surveys have shown Moncada, Nasralla and Asfura to be in the lead, no clear frontrunner has emerged.

In September, a poll released by the firm CID Gallup found that Nasralla had 27 percent support, Moncada 26 and Asfura 24. Those percentages separating the three candidates were within the poll’s margin of error.

An additional 18 percent of respondents in that survey indicated they were undecided.

Why has election integrity been a concern?

Questions of corruption have long dogged Honduras’s fragile democracy, and this election season has brought those fears back to the fore.

During the March primaries, for instance, there were “irregularities” in the distribution of election materials, and some polling stations reported delays, long lines and thin staffing that forced the vote to stretch late into the night.

There has also been discord between the two government agencies that handle Honduras’s elections: the National Electoral Council (CNE) and the Electoral Justice Tribunal.

Congress elects the main leaders for each of the two agencies. But both the tribunal and the CNE have been targeted for investigation recently.

In October, prosecutors opened a criminal probe into CNE leader Cossette Lopez over alleged plans for an “electoral coup”.

The Joint Staff of the Armed Forces has also asked the CNE for a copy of a vote tally sheet for the presidential race on election day, prompting concerns over possible interference by the armed forces.

The Electoral Justice Tribunal, meanwhile, has faced an investigation into whether it has voted without all of its members present.

Both President Castro and members of the opposition have spoken about the potential for fraud in Sunday’s vote, heightening scrutiny on the vote.

Organisations such as Human Rights Watch and the Organization of American States (OAS) have expressed concern over the pressure facing election officials.

“What matters most now is that electoral institutions are allowed to operate independently, that the Armed Forces adhere strictly to their limited constitutional role, and that all political actors refrain from actions or statements that could inflame tensions or undermine public trust,” said Goebertus.

In its deal with Alberta, Canada will scrap emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, among other moves.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has signed an agreement with Alberta’s premier that will roll back certain climate rules to spur investment in energy production, while encouraging construction of a new oil pipeline to the West Coast.

Under the agreement, which was signed on Thursday, the federal government will scrap a planned emissions cap on the oil and gas sector and drop rules on clean electricity in exchange for a commitment by Canada’s top oil-producing province to strengthen industrial carbon pricing and support a carbon capture-and-storage project.

Carney is counting on the energy sector to help the Canadian economy weather uncertainty from United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and is seeking to diversify from the US market, which currently takes 90 percent of Canada’s oil exports.

He has relaxed some environmental restrictions implemented by his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, while reaffirming his commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Alberta is also exploring the feasibility of a new crude oil pipeline to British Columbia’s northwest coast in order to increase exports to Asia, but no private-sector company has committed to building a new pipeline.

Pipeline companies and the Alberta government have repeatedly said significant federal legislative changes – including removing a federal cap on oil and gas sector emissions and ending a ban on oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast – would be required before a private entity would consider proposing a new pipeline.

Thursday’s agreement includes a commitment by the federal government to adjust the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in order to facilitate oil exports to Asia.

British Columbia Premier David Eby, who opposes a new pipeline through his province, said on Wednesday the legislation should stay in place.

Other pipeline opponents are also speaking out. A coalition of Indigenous groups in British Columbia said this week it will not allow oil tankers on the northwest coast and that the pipeline project will “never happen”.

The Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, which is owned by the Canadian government and is currently the only option to ship Canadian oil directly to Asian markets, tripled its capacity last year with a 34 billion Canadian dollar ($24.2bn) expansion.

The federal government and Alberta also said they would conclude an agreement on industrial carbon pricing by April 1 next year.

In addition, the two agreed to cooperate on building the Pathways Plus project, expected to be the world’s biggest carbon capture project and designed to capture emissions from Canada’s oil sands.

The federal government will also assist Alberta in building and operating nuclear power plants, strengthening its electricity grid to power AI data centres, and building transmission lines to neighbouring provinces.

Police Scotland

‘Clearly dangerous’

The military has seized power in Guinea-Bissau, a day before Sunday’s presidential election results were due to be announced.

The African Union and West African regional bloc ECOWAS have condemned the coup.

Why has it happened and what are the implications?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Kabir Adamu – Managing director of Beacon Security and Intelligence

Bram Posthumus – Political and economic analyst specialising in West Africa and the Sahel region

Ovigwe Eguegu – Peace and security policy analyst at the consultancy Development Reimagined

Pope Leo XIV hailed Turkiye as a bridge between cultures and religions, as he began his first foreign visit since becoming pontiff. He warned the future of humanity was at stake as a result of escalating conflicts. The Pope will also visit Lebanon during his tour.