United

China and the United States have once again reached a crossroads in their relationship over bilateral trade issues. On April 2025, the US increased number of tariffs on Chinese imports under its “Liberation Day” policy, imposing duties of up to 145% on various Chinese products. Particularly on electronics, steel-based appliances, and chemicals. China on the other hand put a ban on exporting rare earth metals to the US. These measures disrupted supply chains in the U.S. as the U.S. market is heavily dependent on Chinese imports and the policy on tariffs increased costs for both nations. The US and other developed nations have put in great efforts to promote free trade practices but in recent times protectionist policies seem reversing all those efforts. International trade regimes were created to resolve issues related to trade conflicts but due to America’s unilateral approach, those regimes like WTO seem so fragile that they do not play any significant role in resolving trade related issues.  China is making efforts to implement the Geneva trade consensus. The Geneva trade consensus, which is an agreement to reduce trade barriers and restore supply chain trust, was hailed as a milestone. Nonetheless, the key question on everyone’s mind remains whether the United States will honour its commitments or revert to its conventional backchannel manoeuvres

Following the Geneva talks and subsequent meetings that were held in London on July 4, 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce confirmed that the nation would accelerate approvals for rare earth exports, along with reviewing applications for other controlled materials that are according to domestic law. Rare earth elements are crucial for many sectors that the US depends upon, such as Electronics, defense, and clean energy. China is not only continuing to export these materials, but they are doing so despite years of tariffs, trade restrictions, and political tensions with Washington.

The United States agreed that it would remove trade restrictions that have been damaging to Chinese companies. However, the United States has not been holding up its end of the bargain. Chinese experts claim that the US continues to “send signals that undermine economic cooperation”. This raises doubts as to whether the United States is willing to honour its deal.

This was made evident when the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced, following the London meetings, that both parties had reached an agreement to move faster in translating consensus into policy. China did just that almost immediately, speeding up a number of rare earth export applications. The US has been slow on follow-through, taking few steps toward eliminating restraints that were to be removed weeks earlier. For Chinese trade officials, the distance between words and deeds on the American side is growing too glaring to be ignored.

This isn’t new for America. In 2018, the United States introduced tariffs worth billions of dollars on Chinese goods. They justified it with vague claims of trade imbalances and national security. However, in the aftermath, the results were crystal clear. Prices didn’t just go up for American consumers, but businesses on both sides of the Pacific Ocean suffered. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis even reported that the American Economy has shrunk slightly in the first quarter of this year due to US foreign policy towards China.

This economic downturn was not a coincidence. It was caused by built-up tensions, shattered supply lines, and a vicious cycle of sanctions and counter-sanctions. Experts in China consider that if the United States keeps going this way, the repercussions will become even worse for its internal economy. Some American producers who rely on secure access to Chinese rare earths and parts are already experiencing higher costs and delays in production. This became evident when China temporarily restricted rare-earth magnet exports, forcing global manufacturers to seek alternative sources and deal with sharply increased costs.

Nonetheless, China continues to uphold its commitment to cooperation by welcoming American businesses into its country. At the recent Summer Davos forum in Tianjin, US companies showed great interest in the Chinese market. US exhibitors expected at the China International Supply Chain Expo have risen by 15%. These businesses know that trade with China is an opportunity, not a threat.

Chinese authorities claim, US participation is not an accident. Politicians in Washington may be posturing for the press. But American companies know China provides a fertile ground for business ventures. Some companies have gone so far as to say that they feel safer conducting business in China than in other markets due to China’s commitment to consistency, long-term planning, and open-door policy.

Beijing is urging Washington to “meet China halfway”. While China continues to follow through on the Geneva consensus. China isn’t being diplomatic. This is a genuine call for mutually beneficial cooperation. China is a country that bases its actions on international cooperation and being predictable.

Chinese policy experts also pointed out that China has nothing to gain from half-hearted agreements. Their support for the Geneva consensus is driven by practical concerns rather than political motives. They want predictability in trade, reliability in export channels, and fairness in economic ties. All of these require the United States to take initiative.

However, meaningful cooperation requires mutual effort from both parties.

If the United States continues to delay, it will not only risk damaging its relationship with China. They will end up eroding their credibility as a global economic leader. In today’s globalized world, where supply chains cross borders and economies are tied at the waist. Trust goes beyond mere goodwill. It’s strategic capital. And as of right now, China is the one building that capital.

Recent developments support this. Chinese authorities have simplified rare earth licensing and established a transparent application process, welcoming oversight from foreign businesses. Meanwhile, American trade policy continues to operate in grey zones. Many Chinese companies are experiencing unjustified scrutiny or barriers when entering the US market, even in sectors not linked to national security.

China consistently honors its commitments and provides stability to its partners. They are positioning themselves as a more dependable partner in Global trade. The US, in contrast, risks isolating itself through backtracking and hesitating. When trust is lost, partnerships will suffer, investments will slow down, and influence will fade.

There have been reports that last year saw foreign direct investment in China from European and Asian nations hold steady. But here is what is surprising: US investments have been slow-moving, not due to issues with China, but because Washington has been sending out confusing signals. That is costing American businesses their edge in one of the most critical markets in the world.

To keep that from happening, Washington must match China’s seriousness.

The Geneva consensus, as Chinese officials insist, was never an empty headline to start with. It was a structural change in trade relations, one that increases transparency and real outcomes. China is already living by that. The US has to either join this new direction or be left behind.

And there is a larger context here as well. With the world facing economic instability, no country can do it alone. China is indicating that it’s willing to contribute to global recovery and sustainable development. But it won’t do it if the US keeps putting obstacles in its path.

The window of co‑operation is open, but it will not remain open indefinitely. China’s message is unambiguously clear: We are delivering. Now it’s your turn.

Israel is rewriting the rules of the game in the Middle East, not through diplomacy, peace treaties, or multilateral negotiations, but by deploying advanced military tools such as drones, guided missiles, cyberattacks, and cross-border intelligence operations. This aggressive approach, often justified under the banner of “self-defense,” goes beyond defense in practice and has resulted in a violent reconfiguration of the region’s political geography. While the United States should strategically focus on containing China, competing in technology, and maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, Israeli policies have dragged Washington into a quagmire of costly and unending conflicts in the Middle East. This situation has not only undermined regional stability but has also jeopardized America’s global standing. Furthermore, this fragmented and chaotic Middle East demands greater energy and resources from the U.S., offering an opportunity for other actors to exploit this disorder to expand their influence.

Israel and the Violent Redesign of Middle Eastern Geography

Over the past decade, Israel has significantly altered its approach to perceived security threats. Rather than relying on diplomatic tools or classical deterrence, it has embraced a strategy that can best be described as a violent redesign of the Middle East’s geography. This strategy includes a combination of targeted assassinations, precision bombings, sophisticated cyberattacks, and deep intelligence operations inside neighboring countries. While the stated objective is to neutralize threats from actors like Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, resistance groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Palestinian resistance movements, the actual result has gone far beyond defense, raising fundamental questions about the territorial sovereignty of other nations in the region. 

    Israel’s repeated strikes on targets in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and most recently inside Iran, have not only violated national sovereignty but rendered traditional red lines—defined by international treaties—virtually meaningless. These actions send a clear message to the region: in the new Middle East order, borders are no longer defined through diplomatic agreements but by military power and the flight paths of drones and missiles. What we are witnessing today in the Middle East surpasses traditional conflicts or conventional warfare. Israel is creating a new missile-based order in which the rules of engagement are dictated not by negotiations or international treaties, but by military and technological superiority. In this new order, drones and guided missiles have become tools for rewriting the region’s political and military boundaries. Although this strategy is ostensibly designed to secure Israel, it has in practice contributed to the growing instability across the region.

    The message of this new order to regional actors is unmistakably clear: deterrence is no longer achieved through diplomacy or conventional state armies. In the absence of coordinated responses from regional governments, non-state resistance groups have emerged as the only effective counterforce to these aggressions. Groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—despite their ideological and political differences—share one common goal: resisting Israel’s military and intelligence dominance. This decentralized, networked resistance has posed an unprecedented challenge to Israel. Unlike traditional wars fought in defined battlefields with clear enemies, these confrontations lack both fixed timelines and geographic clarity. Even Israel’s most advanced defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, face limitations in confronting these diffuse and asymmetric threats.

A Geopolitical Challenge for Washington

The strategic and political alignment between the United States and Israel has elevated this from a regional crisis to a global challenge for Washington. At a time when the U.S. should be allocating its resources to compete with China, secure maritime routes in the Asia-Pacific, protect Taiwan, and drive technological innovation, it is now forced to spend a significant share of its time, resources, and international credibility managing the fallout of Israeli policies. America’s unwavering support for Israel, from advanced arms sales to diplomatic cover at the UN Security Council and intelligence cooperation, has made it an active partner in this new missile order. Every Israeli strike on Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian, or Iraqi territory, directly or indirectly, implicates the United States. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Syria, Yemen, and deep inside Iraq have compelled Washington to again bolster its military presence in the region. The more America is drawn into managing Middle Eastern crises, the less it can concentrate on global rivalries, especially with China.

    This dynamic is particularly costly at a time when the U.S. is attempting to rebuild its image among countries of the Global South. Across the Islamic world—from North Africa to Central Asia—Israeli actions are viewed not as defensive, but as acts of aggression and occupation. Since the U.S. stands fully behind Israel, this animosity is directly projected onto Washington. Even America’s traditional allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are now distancing themselves from U.S. favoritism and moving toward engagement with other powers like China and Russia.

    One of the most consequential outcomes of this new missile order is the shift in regional discourse. Whereas peace and negotiation were once regarded as primary means of conflict resolution, power now defines the regional order. Through its actions, Israel has demonstrated that the rules of engagement are no longer based on international agreements or even traditional diplomatic norms but on military and technological capability. This shift has not only militarized the region further but also placed the United States in a difficult position. While Washington tries to present itself as a mediator for peace and a guardian of global stability, its unconditional support for Israel has severely tarnished that image.

    Some analysts in Washington may still argue that Israel is America’s first line of defense in the Middle East. However, that view—rooted in Cold War logic—no longer aligns with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. If this “defense” leads to expanded conflict zones, intensified regional hostilities, and a stronger axis of resistance, it can no longer be considered a strategic asset. Israel has become a liability that holds American geopolitics hostage. The costs of this situation are multifaceted: military costs to sustain a regional presence; political costs from losing credibility in international institutions; missed opportunities in competing with China; and the growing influence of other powers in the security vacuum of the Middle East.
    The fundamental question for American policymakers is this: is the United States prepared to sacrifice its 21st-century geopolitical future for unconditional loyalty to a single ally? However strategically important Israel may be, it cannot alone justify America’s deviation from its global priorities. It is time for Washington to redefine its support for Israel—not based on historical habit or domestic pressures, but grounded in long-term national interest. This redefinition could include pressuring Israel to return to diplomacy, scale back aggressive actions, and strengthen regional cooperation. Without such a shift, Israel’s new missile order will not only further destabilize the Middle East but also place the United States on a trajectory where the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Watch Premier League highlights, as late goals from Jarrod Bowen, Lucas Paqueta and Callum Wilson help West Ham beat Nottingham Forest at The City Ground for their first win of the season.

MATCH REPORT: Nottingham Forest 0 – 3 West Ham

Available to UK users only.

The United Kingdom is seeking a new battlefield ballistic missile, a class of weapon that it last fielded back in the Cold War. The Nightfall program reflects expanding interest in long-range precision strike systems, not just in the United Kingdom, but in Europe more broadly, spurred by Russian aggression and its own expanding missile arsenal.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense yesterday published a request for information (RFI) for the missile, providing details of what is required. At this stage, the Nightfall program is in the “open early engagement” phase, with the ministry judging interest from potential suppliers, ahead of a firm procurement decision.

The key performance parameter of having a range of greater than 600 kilometers (373 miles) puts it in the category of a short-range ballistic missile, a class of weapon that can reach out to between 300 and 1,000 kilometers (186 and 621 miles). There is a stated requirement for each launcher to deliver at least two “effectors,” each of which should weigh around 300 kilograms (661 pounds), based on a high-explosive payload. There is no mention of any other types of warheads being required. The wording makes it clear that the two or more effectors requirement relates to each launcher, rather than each missile. It should be noted that, while the RFI uses the broad term “effectors,” it also specifically refers to the requirement for a ballistic missile.

The range figure puts the missile well beyond the reach of the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), for example, a short-range ballistic missile which has a stated maximum range of 300 kilometers (186 miles). While ATACMS has been exported, the United Kingdom is not an operator.

For its new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), another short-range ballistic missile, the U.S. Army has outlined plans for incremental development that will increase its range from 500 kilometers (311 miles) to 1,000 kilometers (621 miles), with plans to extend this even further in the future.

As well as its basic ballistic trajectory, there is a demand for “some basic maneuverability,” suggesting that the United Kingdom might favor a weapon capable of being used on a depressed quasi-ballistic trajectory. This mode of launch renders a ballistic missile more capable of significant maneuvering in flight, presenting major challenges even for opponents with more robust missile defense capabilities.

As for the launcher, this is required to be a mobile platform, capable of operating in “a high threat tactical environment,” suggesting that a good degree of mobility and at least some armored protection are required. It also specifies that the launcher has a low multispectral signature, making it harder for enemy sensors to detect. All missiles are required to be fired from the launcher within 15 minutes of stopping at a launch location. After launch, the launcher must be able to rapidly leave the area, ideally within five minutes.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense wants the missile to be able to navigate in a GPS-denied environment and strike within five meters (16 feet) of a provided GPS coordinate 50 percent of the time. The missile is required to have a fast flight time, able to strike targets within 10 minutes of launch.

The ministry’s document provides relatively extensive information on resistance to jamming and other types of interference, likely reflecting lessons from the war in Ukraine. Here, Russian forces have reportedly been using electronic warfare systems to good effect against GPS-assisted guidance packages used on a variety of air and ground-launched munitions that Ukraine has received from the United States and other Western partners. Similarly, the ability of standoff precision-guided weapons to still operate effectively in the face of heavy electronic warfare jamming is also an area of considerable interest to the U.S. military.

In the Baltic region, Russia’s employment of jamming systems, likely to try to protect critical facilities and assets from long-range Ukrainian drone attacks, has become so pronounced that it is now having serious and potentially dangerous impacts on commercial aviation:

With this in mind, the U.K. Ministry of Defense states that it wants a missile that is “resilient in a complex electromagnetic environment (EME), including within a GNSS [Global Navigation Satellite System] denied and degraded environment, and resistant against targeted electronic warfare attack and spoofing.”

Another area of great interest right now, as regards precision standoff munitions, is the ability to procure effectors of this kind at relatively low cost and to scale up production, when required, to meet the demands of high-end contingencies.

These factors are also reflected in the U.K. requirement, which calls for a minimum production output of 10 missiles per month, if required, with the option to further scale this up. A remarkably low price of £500,000 ($675,000) for each missile is presented as the goal, although this excludes the warhead, launcher, and any development costs. This contrasts with a reported cost of between $1 million and $1.5 million for each ATACMS missile, depending on the variant (although this includes the warhead).

The U.K. Ministry of Defense wants these capabilities to be packaged and ready for at least five all-up units to be delivered for trials within nine to 12 months.

At this stage, it appears that a sovereign solution is also preferred, with the system required to be “ideally […] free from foreign government trade and usage restrictions, such as export control.” There is also a requirement for further growth potential to be available from the start, including the option to increase the range, accuracy, in-flight maneuverability, and more. The combination of a sovereign weapon and a notably low cost point, per unit, would also point to the potential to export this weapon.

It is significant that the U.K. Armed Forces are looking for a new ballistic missile at this stage, having last fielded the U.S.-made Lance, a mobile field artillery tactical missile during the Cold War. With a range of less than 100 miles, this was primarily a nuclear-delivery system for the Central Front battlefield.

Now, driven primarily by concerns about the Russian threat, the United Kingdom is looking at the potential of various new missile systems and has even decided to reinstate an air-launched nuclear capability, albeit using U.S.-owned weapons.

Earlier this year, the United Kingdom and Germany announced they would jointly produce a “deep precision strike” weapon with a range of over 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles, considerably more than specified in the Nightfall program. At this point, it’s unclear whether a ballistic or cruise missile — or perhaps both types — will be the preferred solution for the longer-range requirement.

However, the project reflects growing ambitions among European NATO members to field long-range strike capabilities, faced by a growing Russian threat on the alliance’s eastern flank.

With Russia continuing to make extensive use of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles against Ukraine, the United Kingdom and other European NATO members are increasingly concerned about a major gap in their inventories when it comes to standoff precision-guided munitions.

As TWZ has pointed out before, among European NATO members, only Turkey possesses a conventional ground-launched missile with a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles). This is the locally developed Bora short-range ballistic missile.

In contrast, Russia has fielded or is developing multiple ground-launched ballistic and cruise missile systems that match this kind of performance, and which are able to carry conventional or nuclear warheads. This is before taking into account Russia’s air-launched and maritime long-range strike capabilities, which also vastly outmatch their NATO counterparts in Europe.

As there was in the Cold War, there is a growing demand among NATO members in Europe to develop a deterrent to Russian tactical nuclear missiles, which are being fielded in increasingly advanced and long-reaching forms, including in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. However, at this stage, there is no indication that either of the aforementioned British missile programs envisages using a nuclear warhead, although this could conceivably be introduced, including on Nightfall, at a later stage.

Meanwhile, the United States has announced that it will deploy to Germany, on a rotational basis, starting next year, a range of advanced ground-launched weapons. These include the SM-6 multi-purpose missile and Tomahawk cruise missile, as well as “developmental hypersonic weapons.” The latter is a reference to the Dark Eagle and potentially others, like the Operational Fires (OpFires) ground-launched hypersonic missile system and the aforementioned PrSM short-range ballistic missile.

Developing a new ballistic missile that fulfills the outlined requirements within the United Kingdom, and without recourse to licensed production, may be a challenge. After all, it’s been many decades since the country was developing and producing these kinds of weapons.

It is also worth noting that the U.K. Royal Navy has outlined plans to adapt its two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to fire undisclosed long-range missiles from their decks.

In the past, we suggested that the most likely option for the Royal Navy would involve launching a cruise missile from the carrier, perhaps even a hypersonic weapon. Nevertheless, a ballistic missile is also a possibility, albeit less likely.

It’s unclear at this point what sort of range requirement the Royal Navy is seeking, and what kinds of targets the missiles should prosecute.

As for the British Nightfall effort to develop a new ballistic missile, this points once more to a growing focus on long-range fire capabilities in Europe and, depending on its ultimate range and potential warhead options, it might ultimately have a significant effect on the military balance on the continent.

Contact the author: [email protected]

After starting his career at Bournemouth, Ings was picked up by Burnley in August 2011.

He scored 21 goals in 40 Championship games to help the Clarets secure promotion and then 11 more in the Premier League, despite his team ultimately being relegated.

Ings’ displays though secured a £8million to move to Liverpool in June 2015.

That move also brought him his first England cap, but his stay at Anfield was dogged by knee injuries and after scoring four times in 25 games over three seasons he was loaned out to Southampton.

That saw him return to goalscoring form and brought a permanent move to St Mary’s Stadium in 2019-20, as well as a recall to the England squad after five years..

After bagging 46 goals in 100 games for the Saints Ings moved on to Aston Villa, where he scored 14 in 52 appearances, and then on to West Ham.

Rio Ngumoha scores 100th-minute winner for Liverpool on his debut, after Newcastle fight back from two goals down.

Liverpool needed a 100th-minute winner from 16-year-old Rio Ngumoha to beat Newcastle United 3-2 after blowing a two-goal lead against 10 men in a Premier League thriller.

Ryan Gravenberch and longtime Newcastle target Hugo Ekitike struck for the English champions on Monday, either side of Anthony Gordon’s red card for a wild lunge on Virgil van Dijk.

But amid a frenzied atmosphere at St James’ Park, the Magpies battled back through Bruno Guimaraes and William Osula only to be denied by teenage sensation Ngumoha’s late strike.

Victory takes Liverpool level on maximum points from two games with Tottenham and title rivals Arsenal, who travel to Anfield on Sunday.

Newcastle remain without a win as they miss their want-away striker, Alexander Isak. Liverpool are the likely destination if Isak does leave before the transfer window closes in a week’s time.

Adding to the Magpies’ frustration is the fact that the Premier League champions also won the race to sign Ekitike, whom Newcastle had lined up as a potential Isak replacement.

Liverpool boss Arne Slot named new signings Ekitike and Florian Wirtz, alongside Cody Gakpo and Mohamed Salah, in an ultra-offensive lineup that saw Dominik Szoboszlai deputise as a makeshift right-back.

After failing to land a number of striker targets in the transfer market, Newcastle’s lack of a clinical number nine was exposed as they failed to break down 10-man Aston Villa in a 0-0 draw to begin their season last weekend.

It cost them again against Liverpool, during a dominant opening 30 minutes.

Roared on by a ferocious capacity crowd of more than 50,000, Newcastle penned Liverpool inside their own half without finding the final finish.

Instead, it was the visitors who took the lead completely against the run of play on 35 minutes.

Gravenberch took aim from well outside the area and powered an inch-perfect shot off the inside of the post.

It got even worse for Newcastle before the break, as Gordon took out his frustration by charging late into van Dijk and was dismissed after a VAR review showed his studs had raked down the Dutch defender’s Achilles.

Slot had not even taken his seat for the second half by the time his side doubled their lead 20 seconds in.

Ekitike made it two goals in as many Premier League games, with a composed side-footed finish from Cody Gakpo’s pass.

Newcastle’s sense of injustice only increased when Ibrahima Konate escaped a second yellow card moments later for a push on Harvey Barnes.

But minutes after being booked for taking his protests too far, a fired-up Guimaraes outmuscled Milos Kerkez to head in at the back post.

Liverpool struggled to make their man advantage count for the entirety of the second half, and were made to pay.

Despite his lack of forward options, Howe has been reluctant to field Osula, but the young Dane netted just his second Premier League goal when he bundled the ball beyond Alisson from a Dan Burn flick-on.

Newcastle continued to charge forward in search of a memorable winner, only to be picked out by Liverpool’s attacking quality.

Salah’s pass was brilliantly dummied by Szoboszlai to leave Ngumoha unmarked to curl calmly into the far corner, just days before his 17th birthday.

Liverpool captain van Dijk praised Ngumoha and his other teammates for the hard-fought win.

“I’m really really pleased for Rio. He has to keep working hard, to stay humble, and I’m sure he will do that,” he said after the game.

“Newcastle have the quality; it is always a difficult place to come, and it was today. I enjoy this type of atmosphere, but we could have made it easier. But we’ve got the three points, and we move on. There were many good things today.”

Meanwhile, Newcastle’s skipper Guimaraes said Gordon’s red card came out of overeagerness.

“I think he wanted to help too much. I think, sometimes, you are so excited to play, you make some mistakes,” Guimaraes told Sky Sports.

“It’s happened to me. We always try to give our best. There is a lot of noise outside that we cannot control.”

Syria’s foreign minister accuses Israel of violating a 1974 agreement to advance its ‘expansionist and partition plans’.

Syria has condemned a new “military incursion” by Israel in the southwestern Damascus countryside area outside the capital, calling it a “grave threat to regional peace”, in the wake of the two sides recently holding talks in Paris on de-escalating the conflict in southern Syria.

Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani accused Israel on Monday of violating the 1974 Disengagement Agreement by establishing intelligence facilities and military posts in demilitarised areas to advance its “expansionist and partition plans”.

Al-Shaibani made the remarks at an emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) foreign ministers to discuss Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip.

The latest Israeli military action in Syria follows deadly clashes in the Druze-majority Syrian province of Suwayda, where a week of sectarian violence in July killed 1,400 people before a ceasefire put an end to the bloodshed. Israel carried out strikes on Syrian troops and also bombed the heart of the capital, Damascus, under the pretext of protecting the Druze.

Al-Sharaa will be first Syrian leader to address UNGA

In the meantime, it was announced that Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa will speak at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September, the first Syrian leader to do so in decades, as the nation seeks to rebuild and reengage with the international community after 14 years of ruinous civil war and the fall of longtime leader Bashar al-Assad.

In the more than 50 years that the al-Assad dynasty ruled Syria, neither Hafez al-Assad nor his son, Bashar, ever addressed the annual gathering of world leaders in New York.

“He will be the first Syrian president to speak at the United Nations since former President Nureddin al-Atassi (in 1967), and the first Syrian president ever to take part in the General Assembly’s high-level week,” scheduled for September 22-30, a Syrian official told the AFP news agency on Monday.

Al-Sharaa, who took power in December after leading rebels on a lightning advance to Damascus that toppled al-Assad, remains under UN sanctions and a travel ban due to his past as a fighter, and must request an exemption for all foreign trips.

In April, al-Shaibani addressed the UN for the first time and raised his country’s new flag at the body’s New York headquarters.

Since taking power, Syria’s new authorities have gained regional and international support, both diplomatic and financial, securing critical economic lifelines to reconstruct the devastated country.

Damascus signed 12 agreements worth $14bn this month, including a $4bn agreement with Qatar’s UCC Holding to build a new airport and a $2bn deal to establish a subway in Damascus with the national investment corporation of the United Arab Emirates.

Al-Sharaa met United States President Donald Trump in May in Saudi Arabia, a week after meeting French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on his first trip to the West.

Both the US and the European Union have lifted longstanding sanctions on Syria.

Syria will hold parliamentary elections in September, a week before the UNGA meeting.

They will be the first to take place under the country’s new authorities after the fall of al-Assad. One-third of the 210 seats will be appointed by al-Sharaa, with the rest to be elected.

Manchester United manager Ruben Amorin says his side “could have done better” after taking the lead during a 1-1 draw with Fulham in the Premier League.

READ MORE: Fulham 1-1 Manchester United

Watch Premier League highlights on BBC iPlayer

Available to UK users only.

From NATO’s eastern frontier to the energy corridors of the Baltic, the partnership between Poland and the United States has become one of the most strategically consequential alliances of the 21st century. Forged through shared values and hardened by crisis, it’s a relationship that transcends party politics in both nations and speaks to a larger truth—namely, that while alliances can lead to instability and war, as shown by the interlocking obligations before World War I, alliances, whether bilateral or multilateral, can also promote international stability by deterring conflicts, enabling collective defense, and fostering cooperation and trade among member states.

Poland proves the point. Its journey from Soviet satellite to NATO membership in 1999 and European Union accession in 2004, following a decade-long process of integration and negotiation involving extensive political, economic, and legal preparations, is a story of determination and alignment with Western democratic principles. The drive toward NATO membership was reinforced by citizen advocacy and steady diplomacy, with the Polish-American community playing a quiet but influential role in building bridges between Warsaw and Washington. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates there are nearly nine million Americans of Polish ancestry, making it one of the largest ethnic groups in the country.

From the outset, Poland understood that sovereignty in the modern era requires not only democratic governance but also a credible place within a collective security framework. Joining NATO was a strategic declaration that Poland’s future was bound to the transatlantic community. And it is precisely through NATO that the U.S.–Polish relationship contributes most visibly to international stability.

Response to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Poland responded with clarity and speed, welcoming millions of Ukrainian refugees, supplying critical military aid, and urging allies to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. Due to its geographic location bordering Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian exclave Kaliningrad, Poland took a proactive stance to bolster its defenses and NATO’s regional presence. Poland launched a $2.5 billion national defense initiative called the “East Shield” that was specifically aimed at strengthening the country’s roughly 418-kilometer border with Belarus and 232-kilometer border with Kaliningrad—representing some of the EU’s easternmost external boundaries—which serve as key frontlines for the bloc’s security and border control.

 By shoring up NATO’s credibility and demonstrating readiness to act, Poland helped reduce the risk of wider escalation across Europe.

The U.S.–Poland defense relationship deepened accordingly. American troops are now a permanent presence on Polish soil. The U.S. Army’s V Corps forward command in Poznań, which operates from Camp Kościuszko—named for Tadeuscz Kościuszko, a national hero in both Poland and the U.S.—is responsible for coordinating and overseeing U.S. ground forces deployed in Europe. Missile defense systems such as Aegis Ashore strengthen NATO’s deterrent posture, and joint training exercises have become routine. These measures bind U.S. power to Poland’s geography, creating predictability in Europe’s most volatile region.

Poland’s overall defense spending speaks volumes. It’s approaching five percent of national GDP—more than double NATO’s longstanding benchmark of two percent of GDP for defense expenditures—and Poland’s procurement of Abrams tanks, “shoot-and-scoot” HIMARS rocket systems that are designed for rapid deployment relocation, and F-35 fighter jets ensures interoperability with U.S. forces. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put it during a February 2025 press conference in Warsaw, Poland is a “model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defense, but in our shared defense and defense of the continent.”

Transcending Party Politics

The relationship transcends party politics in both capitals, having remained robust under Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington—Trump, Biden, and now Trump’s second term—as well as across successive Polish governments of differing political orientations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has reaffirmed that “Poland’s commitment to transatlantic relations and NATO must remain unquestionable,” regardless of political shifts in the U.S.

National security isn’t confined to the battlefield. Poland recognized early on that energy independence is a cornerstone of sovereignty, and it has acted decisively to cut reliance on Russian natural gas. The liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Świnoujście, which is named after Polish President Lech Kaczyński, who prioritized energy security, now receives regular LNG shipments from the U.S., while the Baltic Pipe project brings natural gas from Norway and strengthens regional supply diversity. Looking ahead, nuclear energy partnerships with American firms promise long-term stability and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

This alignment in energy policy enhances Poland’s resilience while advancing broader U.S. goals of promoting secure, market-based energy in Europe. In strategic terms, an LNG tanker docking in Świnoujście is more than commerce. It’s a visible symbol of transatlantic solidarity.

Contrasting Russian Reactions

Russia’s reaction to Poland’s NATO membership stands in striking contrast to its view of Ukraine’s Western aspirations. When Poland joined NATO in 1999, Moscow voiced strong opposition, arguing that NATO’s eastward expansion threatened Russian security. Apart from diplomatic protests and some hostile rhetoric, however, Russia ultimately conceded Poland’s accession as a fait accompli. Moscow maintained cooperative channels with NATO and Poland, even as relations were strained. Poland, with its long history of independence struggles and clear Western orientation, was not seen as part of Russia’s cultural or political sphere. Moreover, by the time Central Europe was firmly integrated into NATO, Russia had little leverage to reverse the process.

Ukraine, however, occupies a different place in Moscow’s worldview. Russia regards Ukraine not only as a strategic buffer on its border but also as central to its own identity and history. Unlike Poland, Ukraine is portrayed in Russian narratives as a “brother nation” whose alignment with the West represents a profound geopolitical and cultural loss. For this reason, Russia tolerated NATO’s enlargement to Poland and the Baltics but drew the line at Ukraine, seeing its aspirations for NATO and EU membership as a direct existential threat, responding with annexation, proxy wars, and, ultimately, full-scale invasion. The contrast underscores the strategic weight of Poland’s alliance with the United States.

For Poland, it’s a relationship rooted in hard history: the loss of independence from 1795 to 1918, when the country was partitioned among Prussia, the Hapsburg monarchy, and Russia; the devastation of Nazi occupation; the long shadow of Soviet domination; and decades of Communist rule. That experience forged a national resolve that sovereignty can never be taken for granted and must be anchored in strong alliances. Today those alliances—most of all with the United States—are essential pillars of stability in Europe.

MILLWALL were given a rude awakening ahead of their Championship clash with Sheffield United as their hotel was evacuated in the middle of the night.

The Lions’ squad piled onto the streets of Sheffield at 3:55am on Saturday morning when the siren started blaring out.

4

4

It is not clear what set the alarm off, though players were left huddled outside both entrances to the Radisson Blu hotel for approximately 20 minutes while fire crew investigated the cause of the alarm.

A few players appeared bleary-eyed and fed up, while one player was overheard describing the situation as a ‘farce’.

Another FaceTimed his partner to show her his discontent at being sat on the pavement in the early hours of Saturday morning.

Millwall had made the 144-mile from south London by coach on Friday ahead of their trip to Bramall Lane.

The Lions started the season with a victory over Norwich City before being hammered by Middlesbrough 3-0 last time out.

Between those results, they did progress in the League Cup by beating Newport County 1-0 at Rodney Parade.

They will face a Sheffield United side who have endured a nightmare start to their Championship campaign, propping up the bottom of the table with bitter rivals Sheffield Wednesday.

Manager Ruben Selles confessed last week that he is already fearing for his future just three games into the job.

SUN VEGAS WELCOME OFFER: GET £50 BONUS WHEN YOU JOIN

His team have started the campaign with three successive defeats – including a 4-1 thrashing at home to Bristol City.

Selles said: “We know when you work and you play for Sheffield United, you know that you need to win every match.

“Then if not, and especially if it’s consecutive, then you’re going to be under massive pressure.”

Meanwhile, Millwall captain Jake Cooper is eyeing up promotion to the Premier League.

The defender has been at The Den since his move from Reading in 2017.

He said: “It would be a dream to be a Premier League player with Millwall and everything at the club is geared to get there.

4

4

“There’s more expectation on us now because we finished well last season and the recruitment we’ve done.

“So you can see why people are getting excited.

“It’s important to have lads like Massimo (Luongo) and Alfie (Doughty), who have experience of securing promotion to the Premier League and understand what a winning culture feels like.

“Our new lads have integrated well.

“Alfie knew a few of the guys already while Massimo is very experienced and has been around the Championship for a long time.”

To many first-time viewers of this England team, it was a sight to behold.

None of what occurred will be news to head coach John Mitchell, however. He will be looking more closely at the fine detail of his team, rather than Kildunne’s well-known headline-grabbing abilities.

The neat dovetailing of Tatyana Heard and Megan Jones – a centre partnership that combines power, pace and nous – will have been particularly pleasing.

Jones made perhaps the tackle of the match, marching Lotte Sharp at pace and drawing winces from the stands.

Her break, followed by Heard’s quick hands, set up Abby Dow’s score just after half-time.

It is difficult to see veteran Emily Scarratt, who arrived off the bench in the second half, edging her way back into a first-choice pairing any time soon.

Loose-head Hannah Botterman raged around in the loose and stole a prime turnover off the floor, perhaps inspired by the chance to show up United States’ Hope Rogers who was picked in World Rugby’s Team of the Year in her position.

Sadia Kabeya buzzed with energy in the back row, while fly-half Zoe Harrison’s kicking for posts was superb.

With Emma Sing, the squad’s most impressive off the tee, on the bench and the small change potentially crucial in the knockout rounds, it is an area where high standards must be maintained.

The driving maul is still a trump card and the neat off-the-top variation that gave hooker Amy Cokayne her try will have opponents second-guessing themselves afresh.

The scrum was dominant, especially in the early exchanges.

However there is room for improvement.

Some of the intricacies, tip-on passes in midfield particularly, went astray. Better teams will bring more line speed and pressure to bear on those skills.

Jess Breach scored two tries but won’t want to watch the way she was shrugged off by Erica Jarrell-Searcy for the United States’ score.

Claudia Moloney-MacDonald, who missed this match with a minor injury, will be back to put pressure on Breach soon.

Leeds United fan Colson Smith is given exclusive behind-the-scenes access to pre-season training as the newly promoted side prepare for their return to the Premier League.

Get all the latest news and views from Leeds United

WATCH MORE: Who will vote for McTominay in the Ballon d’Or?

United’s expensively-assembled new forward line draw a blank as Arsenal began title campaign with a tight win at Old Trafford.

Arsenal kept Manchester United’s expensively assembled forward line at bay and scored again from a set piece to win 1-0 at Old Trafford in the marquee match in the opening round of English football’s Premier League.

Arsenal defender Riccardo Calafiori nodded in from close range in the 13th minute on Sunday after United back-up goalkeeper Altay Bayındır flapped at the ball from a corner whipped in by Declan Rice.

After finishing second for the past three seasons, the pressure is on Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta to deliver the club’s first league title since 2003-04.

The Spaniard was left to depend on his reliable defence and goalkeeper David Raya to secure a huge three points as the visitors never fully got going as an attacking force.

United, meanwhile, fell to a loss that is all too familiar under Ruben Amorim following a woeful 15th-place finish last season by the struggling giants of English football.

United spent around 200 million pounds ($270m) on revamping their attack in the preseason, with Bryan Mbeumo and Matheus Cunha starting the match and Benjamin Sesko coming off the bench in the second half.

Cunha and Mbeumo unsettled Arsenal’s normally unflappable centre-back pairing of Gabriel Magalhaes and William Saliba early on.

However, United’s good work was undone by a glaring error from Bayindir, who was deputising for Andre Onana.

Patrick Dorgu came closest to a United reply before half-time with a powerful effort from distance that came back off the post.

Mbeumo and Cunha saw tame efforts easily saved by Raya, while the Spaniard did brilliantly to divert another Cunha shot across the face of goal.

Arsenal had held interest in Sesko for well over a year before instead pursuing a move for Viktor Gyokeres as the solution to their need for a number nine. The Swede had a quiet Premier League debut and was replaced before the hour mark by Kai Havertz.

Sesko made his entrance moments later to a hero’s welcome after rejecting the advances of Newcastle for the lure of the 20-time English champions.

United continued to enjoy the better of the play without finding the finish as Mbeumo saw a powerful header expertly clawed out by Raya.

But Arsenal held firm to keep pace with title rivals Liverpool and Manchester City, who also won on the opening weekend of the campaign.

Calafiori told Sky Sports after the match that his side have room to improve, despite the win.

“Like always, we were working a lot on our set pieces, and that is what we showed today. We have to improve if possible and keep going,” he said.

“If we want to compete at the high level, we have to be good in every position. My teammates are ready to play, and it is not easy to play every game. The confidence we have inside is going to bring up the level. Hopefully, I play a lot but if not there is another teammate that can play.”

Manchester United captain Bruno Fernandes said that while his team played well, they need to be more clinical in front of goal.

“We created lots of chances and didn’t score, so we have to do better next time. We controlled the game well, we were good on the ball,” he told Sky Sports.

“[Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo] created a lot [of opportunities and] they were in the right positions. We know they are dangerous, and they are a threat. We are very aware of what they can give to the team. It was a good first impression for them, but I’m pretty sure they will do much better.”

Elsewhere in the Premier League on Sunday, Chelsea failed to score in their opening league game, as they were held 0-0 by Crystal Palace in the Blues’ first competitive match as the Club World Cup champions.

A month after stunning Paris Saint-Germain in the Club World Cup final, Chelsea toiled at Stamford Bridge after a short preseason because of the team’s exertions in the United States.

Meanwhile, Nottingham Forest hit the ground running with a 3-1 win over Brentford, with striker Chris Wood – the team’s top scorer last season, with 20 goals – netting twice in the first half, on either side of a goal by Dan Ndoye on his debut.

All matches on Sunday featured a period of silence before kickoff as a tribute to Diogo Jota and Andre Silva, the brothers who were killed in a car crash in Spain last month. Jota was a player for Liverpool at the time.

Jacob Ramsey is a player Newcastle United’s coaching team “loved” from afar.

Ramsey is athletic, versatile and hungry to get better – and it is not hard to envisage the 24-year-old developing further under Eddie Howe.

This will have been an emotional move for Ramsey, a boyhood Aston Villa fan who had been on the club’s books since the age of six.

But it felt instructive that the midfielder referenced the pull of working with Howe after completing his move to St James’ Park.

Anthony Gordon, Dan Burn, Lewis Hall and Tino Livramento have all become full England internationals after an extended period working with Howe and his staff.

Do not rule out Ramsey following in the quartet’s footsteps.

Newcastle may be well-stocked in the middle of the park and out on the left, but it is not hard to envisage Ramsey playing his part given the depth the club will need to fight on four fronts this season.

It was a frustrating start to the window for Newcastle, but Howe has now brought in Ramsey, Anthony Elanga, Malick Thiaw and Aaron Ramsdale to increase competition in some key areas.

The one position that still needs to be addressed, though, is up front.

Newcastle already needed a goalscorer following Callum Wilson’s departure last month and it fell to Anthony Gordon to lead the line in Alexander Isak’s continued absence on the opening day.

Brentford star Yoane Wissa remains one to watch.

Hojlund, who joined for £72m two years ago, was United’s main striker last season and scored 10 goals in 52 games.

His debut campaign brought 16 goals after his move from Italian side Atalanta.

The move to drop Hojlund has been backed by United’s leadership.

Amorim has spent £200m on a completely revamped forward line, with Bryan Mbeumo and Matheus Cunha set to fill the two number 10 slots Amorim prefers.

In addition to Mount, England international Kobbie Mainoo could also play as a false nine – while Bruno Fernandes did the job successfully in the 2024 FA Cup final.

On United’s pre-season tour of the United States, Cunha filled the number nine role – although he also tended to drop deeper.

Seventeen-year-old Chido Obi featured for the first team at the end of last season, although at his stage of his development it is thought unlikely he would be regarded as a regular stater, with his involvement is more likely as a substitute.

Amorim could be excused for thinking someone is having a cruel joke at his expense when he assesses an opening that starts with Arsenal at Old Trafford, includes a trip to Manchester City and home game with Chelsea in United’s first five games, and then Liverpool at Anfield in match eight on 18 October.

By that point, it will almost be 12 months since the dismissal of Ten Hag and assessments will be being made about what has changed.

And that is the rub.

United, led by chief executive Omar Berrada, went for an imaginative choice rather than the safe options – which included Marco Silva, Thomas Frank and Graham Potter – suggested by then sporting director Dan Ashworth as Ten Hag’s replacement.

Amorim came to prominence at Sporting by delivering outstanding results with a specific formation. Three central defenders, wing-backs and two inside forwards behind a number nine. The immediate collateral damage in shaping a United squad to fit that system was the discarding of five players – four of whom are senior internationals who prefer to play wide.

The full extent of the additional impact Amorim has made by bringing in Matheus Cunha, Bryan Mbeumo and Benjamin Sesko, at a combined cost in the region of £200m, to fill the attacking roles remains to be seen.

However, the intention is for skipper Fernandes to play deeper in one of the two midfield slots. How much meaningful time on the pitch is afforded to England duo Mason Mount and Kobbie Mainoo, whose contract stand-off remains unresolved, is open to question.

At the back, team selections in five unbeaten games in three countries across pre-season, suggest Harry Maguire and Matthijs de Ligt are battling for a single slot as the middle defender, while Luke Shaw and Lisandro Martinez, when fit, are vying to be first choice on the left of the three.

De Ligt has proved adept at moving into midfield when United’s keeper has the ball. This, Amorim reasons, clears the space for his side to get possession into the areas of the field where they can cause more damage. Fernandes’ task, in Amorim’s ideal world, is to get on the ball as often as possible, and then make the right decisions.

It’s all very technical. In theory, it also provides support in midfield, which tended to be completely overrun during Ten Hag’s time because the Dutchman wanted to stretch the space in that area of the field, something Casemiro was not able to do, while none of those asked to partner him made a particular success of either.

Casemiro’s game intelligence, his ability to read situations and the Brazilian’s calmness under pressure brought him back into favour under Amorim towards the end of last season.

The 33-year-old does not have limitless energy but he was preferred to Christian Eriksen, who was about to leave the club, and, more significantly, Manuel Ugarte, who cost £50.8m to sign from PSG less than 12 months ago, for the Europa League final against Tottenham in May, which United lost.

It seems Amorim regards finding an upgrade in this area of the pitch to be more of a priority than replacing goalkeeper Andre Onana.

That Amorim talks a good game is not in question. Now his team have to deliver.

The target is clear. Amorim has said European qualification is the aim. His players have said the same. More importantly, a financial outlook provided for the club by an external agency spoke about delivering a place in the Europa League at the end of this season as a stepping stone to a return to the Champions League in 2027-28.

It would be unfair to judge United’s season on one game, or even eight looking at that fixture list. But, as Amorim has previously said, he used up a lot of goodwill from the stands last season.

He promised this season will be better. It has to be.

Who: Manchester United vs Arsenal
What: English Premier League
Where: Old Trafford, Manchester, United Kingdom
When: Sunday, August 16 at 4:30pm (15:30 GMT)

How to follow: We’ll have all the build-up on Al Jazeera Sport from 4:30pm (15:30 GMT) in advance of our live text commentary stream.

Arsenal face an immediate test of their Premier League title credentials against a revamped Manchester United.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a closer look at the game.

How does the season shape up for Arsenal?

Mikel Arteta has challenged Arsenal to keep digging for gold.

The Gunners have finished as Premier League runners-up for the last three seasons, sparking criticism of their failure to get over the line in the title race.

Arsenal blew significant leads when Manchester City pipped them to the trophy in 2023 and 2024, before Liverpool left the injury-plagued north Londoners trailing in their wake last season.

Arsenal’s title frustrations are mounting, with fans questioning whether Arteta is the right man to end their drought after winning only the 2020 FA Cup since he took charge in December 2019.

But the Gunners showed their potential last season, with a run to the Champions League semifinals that ended with a narrow defeat against eventual winners Paris Saint-Germain.

And, buoyed by a host of new signings worth more than 180 million pounds ($244 million) in total, Arteta is convinced they can finally get their hands on the Premier League silverware this season.

“You keep digging, digging, digging, and you have to be digging because one day the gold is going to be there,” he told reporters on Friday.

“For three seasons, we’ve had more points than [nearly] any other team in this league, which is incredible.

“You have the consistency, but now we have to do it in a season, to end with more points than any other team.

“That’s the objective. When I’ve been taught, when I’ve been educated, that’s it.”

Hampered by injuries to Bukayo Saka, Martin Odegaard, Gabriel Jesus and Kai Havertz at various stages last season, Arsenal lacked a cutting edge and were held to 14 draws compared with Liverpool’s nine.

That was a crucial edge as Arsenal finished 10 points behind the champions.

Who did Arsenal sign this summer?

In an attempt to insulate Arsenal against another fitness-related collapse, Arteta has brought in Sporting Lisbon striker Viktor Gyokeres, Real Sociedad midfielder Martin Zubimendi, Chelsea winger Noni Madueke and Brentford midfielder Christian Norgaard.

After bemoaning Arsenal’s failure to sign Aston Villa striker Ollie Watkins as Liverpool pulled away during the January window, the Spaniard is a far more upbeat figure on the eve of the new season.

“I think we have great versatility, very different qualities in relation to the opposition, so we are very happy with that,” he said.

Arteta said that “too many” teams have a legitimate shot at winning the Premier League for his liking, some he even suspects will “surprise everybody”.

Whether that was a hint that United, who suffered their worst season since 1973-74 last term, could emerge as contenders after their summer spending spree remains to be seen.

Arsenal were linked with a move for United’s new striker Benjamin Sesko before deciding to bet on Gyokeres for a fee that could rise to 66 million pounds ($89.5m).

The Swede netted 97 times in 102 games in two years at Sporting, much of which came under United’s current manager, Ruben Amorim.

How is the season shaping up for Man Utd?

Instead of being reunited with Gyokeres, Amorim overhauled his attack with the signings of Leipzig’s Sesko, Brentford winger Bryan Mbeumo and Wolves forward Matheus Cunha at a combined cost of more than 200 million pounds ($271m).

United, who have not won the title since 2013, had to spend big to erase the stench of their putrid campaign.

Amorim’s team finished a dismal 15th in the top-flight, and squandered a chance to qualify for the Champions League with a toothless 1-0 defeat against fellow underachievers Tottenham in the Europa League final.

The pressure is on Amorim, who replaced the sacked Erik ten Hag in November, to deliver major improvements in his second season.

Amorim knows Sesko will be key to that target and believes the 22-year-old Slovenian is ready to rise to the challenge.

“I don’t need to tell Ben, ‘Ben, this is Manchester United, a lot of pressure. Every game is like do or die’,” Amorim said.

“He is always thinking about football. He’s really obsessed about that.”

Head-to-head

This is the 244th meeting between the clubs, with United winning 99 of those games and Arsenal winning 89.

The last two meetings ended in 1-1 draws, although one of those was in the FA Cup with United advancing on penalties.

The Red Devils have not beaten the Gunners since December 2022, a 3-1 home win lead by a Marcus Rashford double.

The Gunners have won four of the six following meetings.

Manchester United team news

Defenders Lisandro Martinez (knee) and Noussair Mazraoui (hamstring) are both injury absentees for United.

Joshua Zirkzee and Andre Onana have, however, both recovered from knocks and are available for selection.

Arsenal team news

Arteta has said that the new signings, Gyokeres and Zubimendi, are both “fit to play”.

Leandro Trossard has had a groin problem but is expected to recover in time for selection. Gabriel Jesus remains a long-term absentee with an ACL injury, but otherwise, Arteta has a full squad to choose from.

Manchester United predicted starting lineup

Onana; Yoro, Maguire, Shaw; Dalot, Casemiro, Fernandes, Dorgu; Mbeumo, Cunha; Sesko

Arsenal predicted starting lineup

Raya; White, Saliba, Gabriel, Lewis-Skelly; Odegaard, Zubimendi, Rice; Saka, Gyokeres, Martinelli