war

Tehran, Iran – Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is due to meet with senior Iranian officials in Tehran to discuss the war with the United States and efforts to end it.

Lavrov landed in the Iranian capital on Monday afternoon on his first visit to Iran since February 2025. Moscow said the trip was part of efforts to ease months of tension, since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28. The Russian minister is scheduled to hold talks with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later on Monday.

On Sunday, Lavrov was in Bahrain, which was heavily targeted by Iran during the war, to participate in a strategic dialogue session between Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

He was urged by GCC members to use Moscow’s influence with Tehran to press for “serious dialogue” and restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been severely disrupted by attacks on commercial vessels.

GCC chief Jasem Al-Budaiwi said member states had faced more than 7,000 Iranian missiles and drones since the start of the war.

In the council’s closing statement, the six Arab countries said they wanted Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, as well as its support for regional armed groups, to be included in future talks to end the war.

Nikita Smagin, an analyst and researcher on Iran and Russia’s role in the Middle East, said Lavrov’s trip reflects Moscow’s efforts to maintain working relations with all countries in the region.

He said Lavrov also wants to maintain Russia’s status as a mediator, despite the impact of the Ukraine war on its global reputation.

“The timing of visits to the Gulf monarchies and Iran, taking place almost simultaneously, is a deliberate signal: Moscow wants to show that it approaches relations with all these countries on broadly equal terms and is equally interested in cooperation with each of them,” Smagin said.

How does Russia fit in?

Lavrov told GCC ministers in Manama that the region was once again teetering on the brink of a full-scale war and Russia wanted to establish a regional architecture for “collective security”.

He said this could include combining initiatives from countries in the region, along with those put forward by Russia and China, with the aim of restoring maritime traffic and achieving lasting peace. The Russian foreign minister urged other regional states such as Iraq and Jordan, which have also been hit by Iranian strikes, to participate.

Lavrov expressed support for the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between Iran and the US in June, which later collapsed, as a framework for reducing tension.

Iran has said it wants a return to that agreement, and for Washington to honour a finalised bilateral deal between Iran and Oman to manage territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz. This has been opposed by the US, which has established its own route in the waterway for shipping.

Intelligence reports cited by US media said that Russia and China are providing military support to Iran in the form of satellite imagery for targeting purposes and components for weapons.

But US President Donald Trump contradicted those reports last week, saying Moscow and Beijing would have “too much to lose” if they helped Iran.

Washington has also issued sanctions waivers for Russia in a bid to lower fuel prices driven up by the war against Iran.

Mixed intentions

Russia’s position on the Iran war is somewhat unusual, said Smagin. It has a partial interest in the conflict continuing, as higher oil prices and the severe restrictions on Iranian oil reaching China all benefit Moscow.

“Russia and Iran have been competing primarily for the Chinese market, so China is now effectively forced to buy Russian oil at higher prices because Iranian supplies are largely unavailable,” he said.

Smagin added that Russia does not want the conflict to escalate further, as the consequences could be unpredictable, but its leverage over either Iran or the US to influence the course of the conflict remains limited.

Russia will continue to expand relations with Tehran, Smagin said, including through Caspian Sea trade, and limited military cooperation with Iran.

“These efforts appear to be aimed less at generating economic returns than at expanding Russia’s political influence over Iran and the course of events,” he said.

Military strikes by Iran and the US to wrest control of the waterway have continued, with the US midterm elections approaching on November 3 .

In comments to the media, Trump threatened to “soon finish the job” with Iran, to which Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi replied: “We have unfinished jobs too.”

Doha, Qatar — Qatar’s deputy prime minister has warned that global energy shockwaves from the US-Israel war on Iran have yet to reach their peak, raising concerns about further disruption to supplies, international trade and economic growth.

Speaking at the Global Security Forum in Doha on Monday, Sheikh Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, who also serves as Minister of State for Defence Affairs, identified several threats facing Qatar and the wider Gulf, including risks to sovereignty and disruptions to energy supplies.

“We haven’t reached the peak with respect to energy,” he said, warning of further repercussions “in the coming days and months”.

His remarks come amid continued instability in the Strait of Hormuz – a vital waterway for global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments – following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28, and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes across the region.

Iranian strikes on Qatar’s Ras Laffan industrial complex in March damaged facilities, with repairs expected to take several years.

“We were surprised,” Al Thani said when asked about the attack, adding that there had since been “a lot of discussion with Iran”.

He said Qatar had drawn lessons from the strikes, “to make sure that all of our assets will be protected from any unexpected attack”.

Al Thani also warned against imposing tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

“Transit fees should not be applied,” he said, adding that uncertainty over the waterway would ultimately affect consumers worldwide.

‘We never stop our communication’

Despite the attacks, Al Thani said Qatar continued to maintain contact with Tehran.

“We never stop our communication,” he said, adding that the two countries remained in touch at different levels despite their disagreements.

He described Qatar’s relationship with Iran before the attacks as one of trust, pointing to their shared offshore gasfield and longstanding economic interests.

Al Thani expressed hope that mediation efforts involving Qatar, Pakistan and Oman would help produce an agreement between the United States, Iran and other parties, including Israel.

He said a sustainable settlement would require broader regional dialogue involving Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Pakistan and Turkiye, in consultation with international allies.

“We need to build this on trust,” he added.

Al Thani also suggested developing economic ties with Iran to prevent future conflicts, citing cooperation between France and Germany following decades of hostilities.

“Iran is our neighbour. We need to find ways to live with them,” he said.

US defence ties

Al Thani also highlighted Qatar’s longstanding defence partnership with Washington, saying that “more than 90 percent” of attacks had been prevented through shared expertise and military capabilities developed over the past three to four decades.

He said Qatar was continuing to develop Al Udeid airbase, which hosts US forces and military personnel from other partner countries.

The base was itself targeted by Iran during the conflict, with Qatar reporting that it had shot down two Iranian warplanes during an attack in early March.

Al Thani also announced plans for a new regional defence partnership, saying Qatar was prioritising several aspects including air defence, counter-drone measures and cybersecurity.

“I’m happy to announce today also that soon we’re going to announce a new partnership,” he said, without naming the regional partners involved.

The deputy prime minister stressed that Qatar’s mediation efforts did not diminish its commitment to defending its territory.

“Mediation doesn’t mean that we should not be ready for any defensive action from our side,” he said.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks more war before elections.

Tehran, Iran – Mehrdad Akhlaghi Ketabchi has been appointed Iran’s defence minister at a time when the war with the United States is expected to escalate.

The 68-year-old was approved on Sunday by parliament, which has convened online since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, to assume leadership of the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics. In total, 237 lawmakers voted in favour of Akhlaghi’s appointment and 15 against.

Former Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh was killed along with a large number of other senior figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, on the opening day of the war.

The position was filled temporarily by Majid Ebn-e Reza, who will now become Akhlaghi’s deputy.

Akhlaghi will be responsible for rebuilding and expanding Iran’s military-industrial infrastructure, which has been heavily targeted by the US and Israel.

The new minister’s defence plans were approved earlier by senior military authorities, President Masoud Pezeshkian and parliament’s Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will not be the instigator of aggression against any country but will defend the territorial integrity of the country strongly and to the death against any aggression,” Pezeshkian said.

The president said Akhlaghi has more than 42 years of experience in the Defence Ministry and related organisations.

His principal expertise is in ballistic missiles, solid-fuel propulsion, aerospace technology and military-industrial production, according to state media.

Previously, he served as the head of the Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group, the Aerospace Industries Organization and the Defence Industries Organization. Akhlaghi and these entities are all subject to sanctions by the US. He is also under United Nations sanctions.

He has been associated with developing several missile types and related weapons-development projects over the past decades, according to Tasnim, a newspaper linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),

Akhlaghi reportedly played a role in expanding the major Sejjil and Zolfaghar family of Iranian ballistic missiles as well as precision-guided weapons, such as the Almas missiles and Yasin guided bombs.

He is also said to have expertise in space launchers, research rockets and infrastructure associated with the Imam Khomeini Space Center in Semnan. These have all been critical elements in Iran’s wars against Israel and the US.

This month, Iran’s Defence Ministry spokesman, Brigadier General Reza Talaei-Nik, told reporters that Akhlaghi’s nomination reflected Iran’s need to increase the quantity and quality of strategic weapons, particularly missiles and drones.

“Offensive arms are being actively improved,” the spokesman said.

The US has repeatedly claimed that it has destroyed most of Iran’s military-industrial capacities, but Tehran has maintained it continues to have considerable offensive and defensive capabilities outside the reach of US and Israeli bombs. These weapons have been upgraded based on Iran’s new war experience, it has insisted.

Akhlaghi told members of parliament this month that he had met with senior military commanders, including the commander-in-chief of the IRGC, Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi, to develop a better understanding of their requirements during and after the war.

His priorities as defence minister would be faster military-industrial development, air defences, incorporation of emerging technologies using government and private sector firms, improvements in armed-forces welfare and development of international military cooperation, according to reports.

In his first comments as defence minister on Sunday, Akhlaghi taunted the administration of US President Donald Trump, which this month threatened to use the “mother of all bombs” on Iran’s nuclear and energy infrastructure.

“We have made preparations and continue our work with ease of mind,” he told reporters. “The US president must think of getting his forces out of our region in one piece. If he drops one bomb, he must see how many of his troops he will have to evacuate horizontally.”

US secretary of state says Ukraine has requested access to military-grade version of Starlink for strikes deep inside Russia.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Starshield, the military-grade version of the Starlink satellite service, is currently unavailable to Ukraine, but a request from Kyiv to access the system for attacks deep inside Russia is “under discussion”.

Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Rubio stressed Starshield’s distinction with Starlink, the internet service provided by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

“Starlink is a commercial product, okay? And so it’s regulated and handled as a commercial product. Starshield is a defence product, a military product,” said Rubio, in comments released by the Department of State.

“They’ve asked for access to it in order to conduct deep strikes inside of Russia. They do not have access to it at this moment,” he added. “That’s under conversation.”

Launched in 2022 and provided to the US government, Starshield is designed for military use as it allows for deeper encryption to process sensitive information. SpaceX says it is primarily used by US defence agencies and other “government partners”.

Last week, Ukrainian officials said restrictions on Starlink terminals had slowed some drones on the battlefield, as Ukraine tries to hold back Russian forces in their nearly five-year war.

In his comments at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, Rubio also rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s suggestion that the reported disruption to Starlink services in Ukraine on Wednesday was deliberate.

“Well, I don’t know what Zelenskyy said. I’m not sure Zelenskyy knows what he’s talking about, but it wasn’t deliberate. We have nothing to do with that,” Rubio said.

Zelenskyy said on Saturday that the satellites are not tracking antennas on flying objects travelling faster than 161 kilometres per hour (100 miles per hour). This is affecting Ukrainian drones in their defence against Russian jet-powered drones and in their own medium-range attacks, he added.

Rubio said the US had not ordered Starlink speeds to be reduced and that the service had reportedly been restored to its previous level.

“No one at the White House ordered anyone to slow down internet or slow down speed so that certain drones couldn’t use it,” he said, calling the reports “categorically false”.

The remarks came as US President Donald Trump drew criticism from Democrats and Republicans after waiving sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its oil and gas, days before the restrictions were due to take effect under a law he signed last month.

Zelenskyy also criticised the sanctions waiver on Saturday, saying easing pressure on Russia would encourage further attacks.

“Financial rewards for [President Vladimir] Putin – all of this only encourages him to keep attacking,” Zelenskyy posted on social media, urging the US to maintain pressure on Moscow.

Since the start of the war, there have been several negotiation initiatives between the United States and Iran. Only one – the memorandum of understanding signed in Islamabad on June 18 – was concluded, but it collapsed within days.

While prevailing analyses tend to explain this failure through the details of the provisions, this article proceeds from a different premise: that the diplomatic stalemate between the two sides is shaped by a syndrome that has governed US-Iranian relations for years.

In international relations, psychological syndromes can arise as a result of deep crises that leave their mark on political consciousness and memory, potentially obstructing efforts at rapprochement and negotiation between countries.

In the case of Iran and the US, the syndrome is comprised of two complexes: the complex Washington developed as a result of the 1979 siege of the US embassy in Tehran and the complex Tehran developed as a result of historical US hostility and its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

The roots of the rupture between the two countries go as far back as August 1953 when US and British intelligence agencies helped overthrow the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh after it nationalised the oil industry in 1951. Since then, a perception has become entrenched in Iranian consciousness: that Washington does not accept an independent government in Tehran and it is prepared to sabotage it if it goes against its interests.

From this perspective, Washington’s decision to host Shah Reza Pahlavi, who had just been overthrown by his people, for medical treatment in October 1979 was read in revolutionary Tehran as a prelude to a second coup.

Iranian students stormed the US embassy on November 4 that year and held 52 Americans for 444 days. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed and have not been restored to this day.

While the incident is portrayed in the Iranian narrative as a defence of the revolution, in American consciousness, it established the image of Iran as a state that does not respect international norms, whose word cannot be relied upon and whose behaviour should not be rewarded.

That is the embassy siege complex. It is not about the incident itself so much as the informal rule it produced in US decision-making: that Iran must concede first and its concession must be verified before it receives anything in return.

The Iranian complex was shaped by this history as well, but it reached its peak in May 2018 when US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) confirmation that Tehran was complying with it.

Just two weeks later, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced 12 demands for a new deal, only four of which were related to the nuclear file. Seven of them were related to Iran’s regional behaviour in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and the Gulf. In other words, Washington did not merely revoke an existing agreement; it also raised the ceiling of its conditions for any future agreement.

The knot then deepened in June 2025 when the US took part in the Twelve-Day War and struck the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan at a time when a new round of indirect negotiations was scheduled in Muscat. It then reached its furthest point with Washington’s participation alongside Israel in the current war.

Accordingly, a conviction became entrenched in the Iranian consciousness that an American signature guarantees nothing, that any agreement can be overturned with a change of administration and indeed that negotiation itself may be a cover for war rather than an alternative to it.

The informal rule this has produced in Iranian decision-making is that there will be no step taken before binding guarantees and no concession before pressure is lifted.

Thus, the two complexes stand at opposite ends: The first requires Iranian action before an American quid pro quo while the second requires an American guarantee before Iranian action.

A reading of the recent negotiation initiatives shows that every US initiative bears the imprint of the embassy siege complex. The 15-point plan put forward in March demanded the dismantling of the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow facilities; an end to uranium enrichment; the suspension of Iran’s missile programme; and the abandonment of its allies in exchange for promises to lift sanctions later.

The May draft by White House envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner linked the release of Iran’s frozen funds to the suspension of enrichment first. The American response in September also stipulated the freezing of enrichment and the entry of inspectors throughout the negotiation period.

What remains constant in the American initiatives is that Iranian action precedes the quid pro quo and verification precedes trust.

The imprint of the JCPOA withdrawal complex in the Iranian initiatives is also a constant. The five-point response in late March demanded guarantees that war would not be repeated. The 10 points put forward in April demanded a binding UN Security Council resolution shielding any agreement from being overturned. And the 14 points in May demanded a nonaggression pledge that includes Israel.

Meanwhile, the seven-day plan proposed by Tehran last month stipulated the lifting of sanctions and the US naval blockade on Iran before the opening of the Strait of Hormuz on the sixth day and the start of nuclear negotiations on the seventh. What remains constant in the Iranian initiatives is that guarantees precede action and the lifting of pressure precedes Iranian concessions.

All these initiatives were dialogue between two complexes with each side drafting its text to protect itself from a repetition of its historical experience with the other, rather than to meet the other halfway. This may explain why the gap in substance has narrowed, but the gap in trust has not.

The Islamabad memorandum represents the exception that proves the rule as it was the closest moment to a settlement because it was formulated to reassure both sides over their core concerns. To reassure Washington, it stipulated the dilution of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and made the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of funds conditional on Iranian implementation.

To reassure Tehran, it provided for an end to hostilities, respect for mutual sovereignty, a mechanism to monitor implementation and UN Security Council approval of the final agreement. Ballistic missiles were also entirely absent from the text.

But this agreement did not hold. Tehran suspended its participation in the Geneva round of talks because of the absence of a ceasefire in Lebanon, which had been a consistent demand in every Iranian initiative since March. In the Iranian reading, Washington’s inability to rein in Israel confirmed that an American signature was not enough. The JCPOA withdrawal complex immediately kicked in, and the two sides returned to square one.

By late September, the dispute appeared to have shifted definitively from substance to sequencing. Informed sources indicated that it now revolves around the order of steps rather than their content and the stated goal has become a return to an enhanced version of the June memorandum.

Here the two complexes appear in their clearest form: Washington wants the Strait of Hormuz opened and enrichment frozen first because it does not trust Iran while Tehran wants the naval blockade lifted first because it does not trust the US.

A comparison between Pompeo’s 2018 conditions and the June 2026 memorandum shows that US demands have retreated from redefining Iran’s regional role to focusing on the nuclear file and the Strait of Hormuz while Iranian demands have shifted from compensation to be paid by Washington to a conditional investment fund financed by other parties.

In other words, the substantive gap between the two sides has narrowed considerably – something that would have been unimaginable eight years ago.

However, the two complexes have not diminished; indeed, they may have deepened because of the war. Each complex feeds the other until together they have become a single syndrome, and diplomatic deadlock has turned from a passing condition into a stable structure.

Accordingly, any new formula for sequencing the steps, however precise, will remain unable to break this deadlock unless it addresses both complexes at once – something that requires a third party capable of guaranteeing both the action and the reciprocal action simultaneously.

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

Fires reported on three tankers in Strait of Hormuz and Sea of Oman, as masked settlers attack European politicians in occupied West Bank.

Oct. 17, 2026 8:31 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s abrupt decision to waive sanctions on Russia days before they were to take effect drew outrage Saturday from members of Congress, which had overwhelmingly passed the legislation in a bipartisan display of American support for Ukraine in the war with Russia.

Lawmakers from both parties blasted the executive order late Friday, the latest in a series of steps that the Republican president has taken drawing the United States closer to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Trump recently announced a diesel deal with Putin to import Russian energy in a long-shot effort to curb high gas prices in the U.S. that are roiling the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

“Beyond irresponsible,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), on social media, hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed hope that the sanctions that were supposed to take effect Sunday targeting Russian’s economy could be revived.

“What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?” Tillis said. “It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine.”

Tillis said that if Trump wants to actually bring down energy prices, he should resolve the Iran war, which is largely blamed for the spike at the pump, and “not by doing a solid for Vladimir Putin.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said, “Lindsey would be appalled,” referring to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked endlessly on the bill before he died this summer. The bill is known as the Lindsey Graham Russian Sanctions Act.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Trump is “thumbing his nose” at Congress and “enabling Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression.” She urged her colleagues to take action to reverse course.

Trump’s actions come as Ukraine is bracing for a stark winter confronting Russia’s ongoing attacks on its energy infrastructure to heat homes and keep the lights on. Zelensky, who has endured a rocky relationship with Trump but stayed close to the U.S. lawmakers, urged supporters to speak out on behalf of the sanctions.

The next steps are highly uncertain with the House and Senate on recess until after election day. Trump said he was waiving the sanctions indefinitely, citing national security concerns. It is unlikely Congress would be in a position to take any action to challenge Trump’s moves until lawmakers return to Washington.

It took almost a year for Graham to persuade Trump to agree to the Russian sanctions package. It was designed to impose steep tariffs on countries that import large amounts of Russian oil and energy products and was promoted as way to halt the flow of funds fueling Putin’s four-year war against Ukraine.

But even as Zelensky had watched from the visitor gallery as the Senate advanced the package after Graham’s death, skeptics in Congress warned Trump would be unlikely to follow the bill once he had signed it into law a month ago.

Last week, a bipartisan group of senators urged the Trump administration to more quickly clamp down on Russia, particularly the “shadow fleet” of tankers that Moscow is using to transport oil and bypass America’s sanctions. The senators noted that the bulk of the new law’s provisions were to be effective Sunday.

Instead, Trump soon announced the diesel deal with Putin, saying that Russia had agreed to supply tons of fuel to the U.S., where gas prices have skyrocketed in some areas and voters saying affordability issues are a top concern.

Outraged lawmakers have pledged to stop the Trump-Putin deal.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who had led opposition to the Graham bill — warning that Trump would flout the law — introduced legislation Friday that would block Trump’s diesel deal with Putin.

“At a time when the United States should be increasing pressure on the Kremlin, Donald Trump is cozying up to Putin and striking self-enriching deals instead of standing with Ukraine,” Meeks said in a statement.

He called the deal “corrupt” and said it “goes against everything the United States stands for.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order waiving newly-passed Russia sanctions, claiming the move is in the US’s “national interest”.

Earlier this month, Trump also announced a deal to bring stocks of Russian diesel into global markets, in a bid to drive down energy prices that have spiked during the US-Israel war on Iran. The US Treasury waived sanctions on Russian diesel sales until April 2027.

Trump’s embrace of Russian energy has angered Ukraine, European partners and many US officials, who say the move rewards Moscow while it continues its four-and-a-half-year war against its neighbour.

Ukraine’s President Volodmyr Zelenskyy slammed Trump’s diesel deal as “a gift” to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin that will help fund his war effort.

While European countries have also criticised Trump’s embrace of Russian energy, the US president has accused them of “hypocrisy”, as figures show that European Union countries continue to import Russian gas.

Here’s what we know:

Which sanctions has Trump waived?

In his executive order on Friday, Trump called off numerous planned Russia-related sanctions days before they were due to take effect, including duties on Russian goods and penalties for buying the country’s oil and gas.

The now-blocked measures were part of legislation passed in Congress with bipartisan support last month, named after the late US Senator Lindsay Graham, an outspoken critic of Russia.

They would have included up to 100 percent tariffs on all goods brought into the US from the five top importers of Russian crude oil or gas, including China and India. They could also have imposed equal penalties on countries deemed to have knowingly bought oil or gas from Russia 30 days after the law’s implementation, or to be among the top five countries helping Moscow circumvent sanctions on sales of its oil.

The waiver will hold until the Trump administration believes “further action is appropriate”, according to the executive order.

US Congressman Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, said the sanctions waiver amounts to a “surrender to Putin” that “betrays our Ukrainian partners and defies clear congressional intent”.

Who will benefit from this?

Vasily Astrov, an economist at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, told Al Jazeera that the Russian government will likely be the greatest beneficiary because the easing of sanctions means Russian oil will not have to be further discounted.

He estimated that about 60 cents of every extra dollar in the price of a barrel of Russian oil would “end up in state coffers”.

Russian official Kirill Dmitriev, an envoy for Putin, hailed the US decision to waive the sanctions as “an important and truly historic moment”.

Other beneficiaries include major importers of Russian oil and gas, such as China and India, who are now less exposed to the risk of secondary US penalties.

While Trump hopes the measures will also help bring down oil prices for US consumers before November mid-term elections, experts say that is less certain.

Addressing the US’s recent diesel deal with Russia, EU economy chief Valdis Dombrovskis said it is unlikely to have a significant impact on global prices.

According to Trump, that deal would bring 300,000 tonnes of diesel fuel into US and global markets “immediately”, followed by 500,000 tonnes in November, and 1 million tonnes afterwards.

“If we look at the volumes, they are not of any macroeconomic significance, and frankly, there are strong doubts whether Russia is even able to supply those volumes, and according also to US quality standards, those are big question marks,” Dombrovskis told the AFP news agency.

Which countries still buy oil from Russia?

China and India are the largest buyers of Russian crude oil, purchasing 6 billion euros ($6.74bn) and 3.6 billion euros ($4.04bn) worth respectively in September, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), a nonprofit think tank.

Hungary and Slovakia, the landlocked EU members that have exemptions to the bloc’s ban on Russian crude, also remain big customers, buying a combined 290 million euros ($326m) worth of the commodity in September, said CREA. Turkiye imported 172 million euros ($193m) worth of Russian crude oil the same month, the think tank added.

Since the end of 2022, the largest importers of Russian oil products, which include diesel, have been Turkiye, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Singapore.

Saudi Arabia imported the most Russian oil products in September at 534 million euros ($600m), followed by Turkiye with 321 million euros ($361m), China with 304 million euros ($342m) and India with 161 million euros ($181m).

Is Europe buying increasing amounts of gas from Russia?

“The European Council regrets the United States’ decision to temporarily lift sanctions on Russian diesel,” European leaders said in a joint statement adopted following a two-day European Council meeting in Brussels this week.

But despite its own near-blanket ban on Russian oil, the EU has continued to import large quantities of Russian gas, though it plans to phase out those imports next year.

Urgewald, a Germany-based group that researches coal companies, reported this week that more than 12 million tonnes of Russian Arctic LNG was transported into EU ports from January to September this year, a 9.5 percent jump from the same period last year.

In September, EU countries imported 817 million euros ($918m) of pipeline gas, and 615 million euros ($691m) of liquefied natural gas (LNG), according to CREA.

EU members France and the Netherlands were the largest LNG importers, bringing in 446 million euros ($501m) and 116 million euros ($130m) respectively, according to the think tank. France’s LNG imports represented a 103 percent increase from the previous month, it added.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron has been among the most outspoken about Trump’s diesel deal with Russia, saying on Friday that it “sends a negative message” and would have no impact on global prices.

Hungary imported the most Russian pipeline gas of any EU member by far during the month, with 414 million euros ($465m) worth. Slovakia and Bulgaria brought in 161 million euros ($181m) and 132 million euros ($148m), respectively, according to CREA data.

Manila, Philippines – Keith Cantera and his family have been thinking about having their own solar power grid at home for years. But spending up to $5,000 for solar panels was nothing to scoff at, so they put the idea on the back burner.

It all changed this year when the United States-Israel war on Iran rattled global energy markets and sent electricity prices soaring. From paying a monthly bill of about $150 before the war began in late February, Cantera said his family went to forking out as much as $220.

Eight months later, they are having solar panels installed on their rooftop.

“The cost is about the same as paying our electric bills for three or four years based on the current rate,” Cantera said. “But in the fifth year, we’ll have recovered our investment, and electricity will essentially be free.”

Cantera is one of a growing number of Filipino homeowners turning to solar power in a country that had Southeast Asia’s highest electricity costs even before the war. They were comparable only to Singapore, where the average income is more than 10 times higher.

A report by the energy think tank Ember estimated that rooftop panels had nearly doubled in the Philippines since early 2025.

And in the first months of the war from March to May, the rush for solar power led to $407m in panel imports, according to government trade data from China, where most panels are manufactured. The Philippines became the biggest single overseas market for that period. Only the Netherlands bought more, but it redistributes them to the rest of Europe.

Lexus Grepo, CEO of the solar power supplier Solarmaxx, can attest to the boom.

“There is a 30-day wait because solar panel shipments can’t keep up,” Grepo said. “In March, we had 40 projects, which was almost triple our monthly clientele. Since then, we have been setting up 25 to 30 systems a month.”

Grepo does not expect demand to slow down even if tensions in the Middle East ease and shipping routes for energy supplies reopen.

“I think people now realise that the world is an unpredictable place, so they have to be ready for any eventuality. Filipinos now see that they don’t necessarily have to be at the mercy of the global energy market.”

The Philippines, one of the few countries in the region where electricity is not subsidised, relies on imported coal and gas for more than 70 percent of its power mix. The value of its currency, the peso, which has slid to a record low of more than 63 to the US dollar, is making these imports even costlier.

In late March, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr declared a national energy emergency in response to the war ⁠and what he described as the “imminent danger” posed to the national energy supply. Still, electricity rates have continued to increase.

The shift to solar is also partly driven by anger at electric companies that have come under scrutiny for charging customers for so-called system losses, which include illegal connections.

Cantera said learning about having to pay for someone else’s electricity consumption was the last straw.

“Who would agree to paying for something that you did not use? It’s not like the money we spend for electricity just fell from heaven,” he added.

But while the soaring demand is real, the upfront cost of a solar power system is still too high for most Filipinos. The government in March launched a new initiative offering loans for residential rooftop installations, but these are available only to public sector workers.

What officials hope can bring power rates down for the majority of people are the dozens of renewable energy projects in the pipeline, including a 3,500-hectare (8,650-acre) solar farm north of the capital, Manila, that is projected to be the largest in the world. When fully operational, the project is expected to generate 850 megawatts of electricity for 2.4 million households.

But some consumers said such projects could take years to complete, leaving them with ballooning electricity bills unless they take action themselves.

“It’s just so unpredictable nowadays. You have the impending El Nino weather pattern. There’s still war, the continuing fuel price hikes and so much more,” Cantera said. “So why not utilise a natural resource?”

The UK Foreign Office says it advises against “all but essential travel” to Saudi Arabia, after attacks by Yemen’s Houthis on the country.

United States President Donald Trump has for the first time explicitly ruled out the use of a nuclear weapon against Iran, but has not denied US media reports that his administration is considering deploying the US’s most lethal non-nuclear munition, nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” in the near future.

In an interview published on Thursday by right-wing American news site Newsmax, Trump suggested he does not plan to use nuclear weapons, but also clarified that the devastating aerial weapon, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB – ‘mother of all bombs ) “is not nuclear”.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” he told Newsmax.

The comments marked Trump’s first definitive statement on the nuclear topic following speculation about a possible atomic conflict earlier in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. They also appeared to confirm speculation that another phase of the war is imminent, likely after the US midterm elections on November 3.

Here’s what we know:

What did Trump say?

Trump told Newsmax that the US might indeed launch another strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, particularly on Pickaxe Mountain, where Tehran is believed to be hiding a nuclear facility deep under layers of granite.

He ruled out using a nuclear weapon or a tactical nuclear weapon.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” he said.

He also clarified that the MOAB, which CNN reported the US government is considering using, “is not nuclear”.

Responding to a question about whether the MOAB is “tactical nuclear” – meaning smaller nuclear munitions – Trump reiterated that it is not.

“Well, the mother of all bombs is not nuclear,” Trump said. “It’s not nuclear at all. This is just an extremely large bomb.”

Trump declined to say whether he had authorised its use in Iran.

Trump also suggested renewed attacks are likely in the near future. The US cannot end the war now because it has to ensure Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon, he argued, saying he believes that “if they had it, they would use it, in my opinion, instantaneously”.

Trump also reiterated that the war would end “very soon” whether by force or diplomacy and that oil prices would then drop.

When asked if he would put “troops on the ground”, Trump said: “No, I don’t see that, I don’t see it.” Earlier in the war, Trump had made comments regarding sending in troops, a move analysts said would be devastating for US soldiers because of Iran’s mountainous territory.

What is the ‘mother of all bombs’?

The MOAB carries a massive payload of about 8,500kg (18,000 pounds or 8.5 tonnes) of high explosives. It weighs 9,800kg (21,605 pounds or nearly 10 tonnes) – about the same as four cars – and is just over nine metres (about 30 feet) long. Stealth bombers are too small to carry it, so it has to be deployed by larger, Lockheed C-130 Hercules transporters.

It is designed to explode a few metres above the ground, sending out intense fireballs that can blast buildings and other hard-surface structures within a 1km radius, experts have told Al Jazeera. It is so powerful that a mushroom cloud from its blast has been seen 32km (20 miles) away in tests, the US Air Force has said.

“Its large explosive charge can produce devastating blast effects against exposed personnel, equipment and vulnerable structures,” Brussels-based military and weapons analyst Elijah Magnier said. “Its purpose is to generate an exceptionally powerful blast across a surface area.”

However, Magnier said there is doubt about whether using the massive surface explosive would be effective against deeply buried nuclear installations in Iran. He added that the terrain in Iran could be difficult for larger cargo aircraft to access.

What has Trump previously said about nuclear weapons?

Trump has never explicitly mentioned using a nuclear weapon, but he has also never ruled it out.

Speculation regarding whether Washington might use nuclear weapons was rife in the early days of the conflict, largely because of the extreme nature of Trump’s numerous threats against Tehran.

In April, for example, as Iran enforced a blockade on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump posted on his Truth Social site that “…a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, if Iran did not agree to a peace deal and reopen the strait.

He also threatened to destroy Iran’s infrastructure, saying a bombing campaign “will be Power Plant Day and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one”, in Iran.

Experts widely interpreted his statements as a threat of nuclear destruction, but one that still failed to force Iran to the table.

Although Trump largely moved away from his sabre-rattling rhetoric in the following weeks, he reiterated at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month that he could “annihilate” Iran. He also told the assembly that he believed a deal would emerge after the midterms.

What is a ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon?

“Tactical” nuclear weapons (TNW) are smaller nuclear munitions designed for the battlefield as opposed to strategic nuclear munitions designed for mass destruction.

Some perceive TNWs as having a lesser impact than an atomic bomb, but experts warn that their names are misleading and they can nevertheless be devastating. Their explosive yield, between 0.3 and 50 kilotons, can impact areas within a 500-600km radius.

The US dropped a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, meaning that weapon would today be considered a TNW. The US, North Korea and Russia have TNWs in their arsenals, although no country has ever used them. TNWs are not subject to any international treaties and are largely unregulated.

What might another US attack on Iran look like?

With Trump failing to rule out dropping the MOAB, analysts speculate that the US might launch another – perhaps final – intensive bombing campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear and defence sites, particularly Pickaxe Mountain.

The US could also continue its naval blockade on Iranian ports, while providing escorts for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has vowed to respond to escalatory strikes by targeting oil and digital infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states.

Senior defence officials have also warned that Iran will invade its neighbours if the US launches a ground operation, although Trump appears to have ruled that out.

Earlier in the war, he hinted at the possibility of sending ground forces to retrieve some 400kg of “yellowcake” – highly enriched uranium that Washington and Israel claim Tehran has hidden underground.

Trump’s phone calls in March to Kurdish militia groups fighting Iran provoked speculation that Washington could coordinate with them for an invasion, although that did not happen.

The United States has developed plans to strike Iran with the largest non-nuclear bomb in its military arsenal on Iran’s energy infrastructure and nuclear sites if President Donald Trump orders renewed combat operations, according to US officials cited by CNN.

Deploying the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the “mother of all bombs”, could significantly escalate the ongoing conflict at a time when fighting has lulled, experts say.

Concerns are also being raised, including within the Trump administration itself, over what such a move would even achieve. Officials familiar with military planning discussions told US news outlet CNN and Al Jazeera that deploying the MOAB would be unlikely to help the US achieve its stated strategic goals, including to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Brussels-based military expert Elijah Magnier told Al Jazeera that using the MOAB would not even guarantee the destruction of Iran’s deeply buried underground nuclear installations and that such a strike would likely amount to little more than “political theatre”.

Here’s what we know:

What is the MOAB?

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) is a massive munition containing about 8,500kg (18,000 pounds or 8.5 tonnes) of high explosives. It weighs 9,800kg (21,605 pounds or nearly 10 tonnes) – about the same as four saloon cars – and is as long as a small yacht at just over 9 metres (about 30 feet).

The MOAB is typically deployed from the Lockheed C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft because it cannot fit in a stealth bomber.

The bomb, which was first manufactured between 2002 and 2003, has undergone 12 detonation tests.

Its name is a reference to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s comments during the 1991 Gulf War when he invoked the “mother of all battles”.

The US has only deployed the MOAB once before – during its 2017 attacks on an Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) cave and tunnel complex in Afghanistan. Afghan authorities claimed that while 94 Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP) fighters were killed in the blast, no civilians were hurt. However, there were unconfirmed, local reports of civilian casualties and many homes were destroyed.

What is the ‘mother of all bombs’?

The GBU-43/B, the US’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb, was used once, against Islamic State-Khorasan…

GBU-43/B

Pallet is deployed from rear cargo door of MC-130H or C-17aircraft.

1. Released from the aircraft.

2. Cradle separates; GPS and fins guide it.

3. H6 explosives detonate.

4. A powerful shockwave spreads.

5. Hot gases, smoke and debris rise in a mushroom cloud.

1 of 4

What kind of damage can it cause?

Designed to explode a few feet above the ground, the MOAB sends out lethal waves of fire when it detonates, blasting away buildings, cave openings and other hard-surface structures.

“Its purpose is to generate an exceptionally powerful blast across a surface area,” Magnier said.

Military expert Colonel Nidal Abu Zeid told Al Jazeera the bomb does not require impact in order to detonate and that its massive blast will destroy everything above ground within a 1km (0.6-mile) radius.

It is likely that the US would aim to use the high-explosive MOAB to completely destroy Iran’s ground-force positions above ground, and to reach its underground facilities, including Pickaxe Mountain, which Trump has previously threatened to attack, Abu Zeid said.

However, Magnier said the bomb’s radius and level of destruction would depend greatly on the terrain it is used within and how populated the area is. He added that it may not be particularly effective against targets buried deep underground.

Some of Iran’s nuclear sites which the US may wish to target, such as the Fordow complex and an under-construction site at the Pickaxe Mountain, are heavily fortified and deeply buried.

“Its large explosive charge can produce devastating blast effects against exposed personnel, equipment and vulnerable structures,” Magnier said. “The Afghanistan operation demonstrates its intended application against a cave-and-tunnel position; it does not demonstrate an ability to destroy every kind of underground installation.”

While its blast can reach underground, the MOAB is not especially designed to punch through deep concrete or mountain rock in the way that a “bunker buster” bomb is. The US military’s most powerful bunker buster is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Weighing about 30,000 pounds (13,600kg), including a 2,700kg (6,000 pound) warhead, this precision-guided bomb is made of high-strength steel and built to penetrate up to 200 feet (61 metres) underground before exploding.

Would the US really use an MOAB?

It already has done – in Afghanistan in 2017.

However, besides not being guaranteed to hit underground targets effectively, Magnier told Al Jazeera it could be difficult to deploy the necessary aircraft in the regions of Iran where nuclear sites are located. Stealth bombers which are better suited to this terrain are not able to carry this size of bomb.

Using the bomb could also destroy infrastructure without inducing Iran to make any concessions, he added, noting that its deployment would risk turning “a spectacular event” into one that ultimately delivers few political results for Washington.

“The question I would put to any commander advocating its use is straightforward: What will this weapon accomplish that another available weapon cannot, and how will that result advance an achievable political settlement?,” Magnier said.

“If the answer centres on the spectacle of the explosion, the proposal is stronger as political theatre than as military strategy,” he added.

CNN reported that Trump, in private discussions, has been seeking a “definitive” end to the war that will prove Washington has been undefeated.

How might Iran respond?

A MOAB strike would likely prompt a major reaction from Iran, experts say, warning that Tehran could even invade its neighbours who host US military assets in response.

Iranian security officials have for months made comments regarding a possible invasion of countries like Kuwait to capture US troops and force Washington to surrender.

In May, during a pause in hostilities, Kuwait alleged that sailors from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) infiltrated its Bubiyan Island, leading to an exchange of fire between Iranian and Kuwaiti forces. One Kuwaiti was injured and four Iranian soldiers were captured.

Iran denied that it had invaded the island and said the troops’ navigation system had malfunctioned.

On Tuesday, IRGC security adviser Mohammad Reza Naghdi warned that Iran could capture troops if Washington were to launch ground attacks, although military experts have long dismissed Trump’s earlier threats of an invasion due to Iran’s mountainous terrain.

“If the United States launches a ground attack, so many of its troops will be captured that it will be forced to raise the white flag,” he said.

Experts say Iran has been preparing for another round of war by stockpiling weapons, fortifying key nuclear and defence locations, and rallying its supporters.

In a television broadcast on Sunday, National Security Council chief Mohsen Rezaei threatened that Iran would attack regional digital infrastructure, including communication cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities in the United Arab Emirates and others, if American strikes resume.

Kyiv, Ukraine – The supernova-like blasts of exploding Russian ballistic missiles are followed by thunderous thumps, shockwaves, fires and deaths – and the staccato of Ukrainian air defence systems.

This week’s nightly attacks on Ukraine that killed at least 15 and wounded dozens resembled hundreds of previous raids – with one exception.

The air raid sirens began howling just seconds before or after yet another wave of missiles struck apartment buildings, power plants and warehouses.

But Ukraine’s partners did not provide the country with intelligence data from NATO’s early-warning satellites, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday, as tensions between Washington and Kyiv rise.

He did not name the United States and President Donald Trump has denied that Washington has stopped sharing intelligence.

The constellation of military satellites detects Russian ballistic missile attacks by the rockets’ thermal flames seconds after launch.

The warnings give Ukrainians up to 10 minutes – precious, life-saving time to sound air raid sirens and send emergency text messages to prompt evacuations to bomb shelters.

“That’s what helps prevent the killings,” Zelenskyy said.

Ukraine’s ground radars can only detect the incoming missiles as their speed ranges from 6,000 to 12,000km/h (3,730 – 7,260 miles per hour).

‘Trump pressures our president’

Despite Trump’s denial, Ukrainian observers have a simple yet harrowing explanation – the US president wants to help Republicans win more congressional seats in upcoming midterm elections by pressuring Kyiv into declaring an “energy ceasefire” with Moscow that would drive global oil prices down.

“Trump pressures our president, pressures Ukraine” as he strives to “get advantage by any means necessary in the election campaign,” Lieutenant-General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy head of Ukraine’s general staff of armed forces, told Al Jazeera.

The lack of intelligence data “significantly affects the effectiveness of air defence, we don’t have time to respond,” he said.

Without the satellite data, Ukrainian drones and missiles also “lose precision when striking targets deep in Russia,” he said.

On Sunday, Trump announced the ceasefire that envisages no mutual strikes on energy infrastructure – from Russian oil refineries and fuel depots to Ukrainian power and heating stations.

“Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine. Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!” Trump wrote on social media.

Kyiv said the announcement was a surprise, while Moscow declined to say whether it backs the idea – and kept on hitting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

The pressure goes beyond the refineries as Trump wants to quickly reopen, arbitrate and complete peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow – even if they benefit the Kremlin.

“He needs peace talks to succeed. Ideally, it is a certain unblocking of the peace settlement process, when Kyiv shows more willingness to agree with Russia’s demands,” Kyiv-based analyst Igar Tyshkevych told Al Jazeera.

The pressure will continue until “Kyiv shows readiness for a compromise and concessions towards Russia,” he said.

Moscow “simply abuses” the pressure and the suspension of air raid warnings to escalate attacks on Ukraine, he said.

Kyiv’s ‘priority’: The destruction of oil refineries

The suspension of data-sharing was especially shocking, given that Kyiv did stop hitting Russian refineries for three days.

It was only on Wednesday that its drones attacked refineries in Saratov and Ryazan regions, said Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Aleksander Novak.

However, Kyiv’s focus on striking oil refineries is ineffective and counterproductive, another observer said.

“Kyiv’s strategic priority is still the destruction of oil refineries,” Nikolay Mitrokhin of Germany’s Bremen University, who has penned hundreds of authoritative analyses of the hostilities, told Al Jazeera.

However, Russia overcame the initial shock by transporting gas from refineries in Siberia and exporting it from neighbouring Belarus and Kazakhstan.

No economic collapse, massive joblessness or public protests followed the strikes, while Moscow continued its air raids, adding jet-powered drones that resemble cruise missiles and are hard to down with Ukraine’s existing air defence system, he said.

“What is the basis for Kyiv’s and its backers’ conviction that strikes on oil refineries and depots will lead to Russia’s strategic defeat before Ukraine is defeated? I don’t understand,” he said.

However, Ukrainian attacks on data centres, bridges and factories where drones are assembled are far more effective, he said.

Recent strikes on data centres of Russian online giant Yandex and the state-run Sberbank resulted in disruptions of services in Russia and even former Soviet republics where Yandex operates its online payment, food delivery and taxi services.

Trump “didn’t ask him to stop the war, to give away cities or stop striking Russian rears in general,” Mitrokhin said.

Kyiv has repeatedly reiterated that it was ready to start peace talks if they are preceded by a ceasefire, but Moscow wanted to continue ground assaults and air raids until the peace terms were finalised – which could take months or even years.

‘We’re ready for any turn of events’

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s drone czar accused Elon Musk’s SpaceX of throttling Starlink satellite terminals that are part of the military-grade Starshield system.

Serhiy Beskrestnov said that SpaceX abruptly and without any warning limited services for terminals placed on drones flying over 160km/h (100mph).

The limit affected crucially-important interceptor drones and followed Trump’s request, presidential adviser Serhii Sternenko said.

Musk said that the White House owns and controls the Starshield systems and that any limits on speed are decided by Trump.

Some military analysts warn that the limit may be followed by a total shutdown of Starlink for Ukraine that could damage the quality of all military communications.

“But we were getting ready for everything,” Andriy Pronin told Al Jazeera. “We already know it may happen, that’s why we’re ready for any turn of events.”

In September 2022, Musk secretly ordered engineers to switch off Starlink coverage in the Russia-occupied Kherson region, effectively thwarting Kyiv’s push to retake it, Reuters reported.

In 2023, Musk threatened to cut off Ukrainian military access to Starlink unless the US defence department took over the costs.

Later, the Pentagon, Poland and other European allies took over the costs.

Ukraine president earlier said Kyiv was ‘done’ with energy ceasefire and strikes on Russian oil refineries would resume.

Russia says Ukraine has targeted an oil refinery in Ryazan, about 180 kilometres (110 miles) south of Moscow, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv was “done” with an energy ceasefire unilaterally announced by United States President Donald Trump over the weekend.

“The Kyiv regime attempted a large-scale attack on an oil refinery in Ryazan,” Moscow’s defence ministry said in a statement on Thursday, adding that a “fire broke out after drone debris fell onto the refinery site.”

Ukraine’s president earlier told the British newspaper the Financial Times that strikes on Russian oil refineries would resume, and accused the US of weakening Ukraine’s position on the battlefield by allegedly withdrawing crucial intelligence sharing.

Trump on Sunday unilaterally announced an “energy ceasefire” that was not publicly confirmed, and Moscow continued striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Ukraine said it suspended attacks on Russian energy sites for several days after Trump’s announcement.

The US has pressured Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian refineries, claiming that a suspension of attacks and a deal to purchase 1.8 million tonnes of diesel from Russia would help reduce soaring fuel prices.

“This politically is not simple [in America], because everybody will want to ask how it can be when some people are surviving, fighting, dying – and you make . . . business with the guys with such aggression,” Zelenskyy told the FT.

Zelenskyy also alleged that Ukraine’s access to SpaceX’s satellite internet service was restricted, potentially leaving it more vulnerable to Russian attacks. The Ukrainian armed forces use SpaceX’s military-grade Starshield system for offensive and defensive operations.

In a post on X on Wednesday evening, SpaceX owner Elon Musk said that only the US military and Trump had the authority to limit Starshield’s usage and speed for clients.

In a separate post, he called for Zelenskyy to “go” as Ukraine’s leader.

“And so the slaughter continues,” Musk wrote in a separate post on X. “Time for Zelensky to go.”

Ukraine is heavily dependent on Western military aid in its fight against Russia, particularly from the US and Germany. However, Kyiv’s relations with Washington have been strained in recent weeks, with Trump calling on Saturday for Zelenskyy to be replaced.

Against this backdrop of tensions, Zelenskyy said he would be willing to pause strikes on Russian energy sites again, but only if the US supplied Ukraine with crucial Patriot interceptors.

Zelenskyy is due to meet European leaders in Brussels on Thursday as he pushes for tougher sanctions on Moscow and faster delivery of support from the European Union.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten has called on EU leaders to “step up” their game to ensure Ukraine wins the war against Russia.

The EU has already pledged $50 billion in support for Ukraine next year. However, the sum falls far short of the $175 billion Kyiv plans to spend on its defences next year.

Trump has denied that the US has stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine.

The G20 finance ministers and central bank governors are gathering in Bangkok, Thailand, on Thursday amid an uncertain global outlook shaped by the US-Israel war on Iran.

The meetings are being held in conjunction with the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, taking place in the Thai capital from October 12 to October 18.

Here are some of the key details about the meetings:

What are the G20, the IMF and the World Bank?

The G20 is an economic forum comprising 19 large economies, including the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, India, Japan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, as well as the European Union and the African Union.

The grouping has an annually rotating presidency, currently held by the US.

Together, the G20 countries account for about 85 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) and three-quarters of global trade.

The G20 was established in 1999 as a forum for finance ministers and central bank governors to address shared economic concerns in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis, before expanding into a broader forum for national leaders.

The IMF, based in Washington, DC, is an international financial institution that promotes international cooperation on monetary policy, trade and economic growth.

Its membership includes all but a handful of the world’s sovereign states, including North Korea, Cuba, the Vatican City and Monaco.

The World Bank, also based in Washington, DC, primarily serves as a provider of loans and grants to developing countries. It has 189 member countries.

The IMF and the World Bank were created at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference in the US, convened by the Allied Powers to establish the contours of the post-World War II international financial order.

Who will be attending the meetings?

Most finance ministers and central bank governors of the G20 will be in Bangkok, along with IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva and World Bank Group President Ajay Banga.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will be a notable absence from the gatherings, as the top economic official of the world’s biggest economy and G20 chair.

US officials have cited “domestic engagements” for Bessent’s decision to skip the events, at which Washington will be represented by Deputy Secretary Francis Brooke and Undersecretary for International Affairs Erin Browne.

The G20 meeting, one of several gatherings of the group’s finance ministers each year, will help shape the agenda for the headline leaders’ summit in Miami, Florida, taking place on December 14-15.

What is on the agenda?

The economic fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran is expected to dominate discussions.

Attacks across the Middle East have upended economic activity across the region, while disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has driven a surge in energy prices worldwide.

Crude oil prices have exceeded $100 a barrel for much of the past eight months, placing a strain on government coffers and household budgets, particularly in the Gulf region and the rest of Asia.

In advance of the meeting, Australia’s Treasurer Jim Chalmers MP said he would use the discussions to call for an end to the conflicts in the Middle East and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz “because that’s what the global economy desperately needs”.

“The war in the Middle East is having a devastating economic impact and is pushing up fuel prices, inflation and interest rates around the world,” Chalmers said in a statement.

Other issues likely to feature on the agenda include the ballooning debt levels of many countries, which exceed 100 percent of GDP in the US, Canada, Japan, Italy and France.

In a speech on Wednesday, Georgieva warned that mounting debt posed a threat to the global economy and that there was no “magic” formula that would allow governments to avoid tax hikes or spending cuts.

G20 members will also bring more specific individual concerns to the table based on their economic and geopolitical priorities.

The US, for example, has repeatedly expressed concern about “global imbalances”, a veiled reference to China’s state-driven industrial model that has allowed Chinese exporters to flood overseas markets with cheap goods.

US President Donald Trump has long claimed that China’s large trade surplus, which stood at a cumulative $938bn in September, proves that international trade is stacked against US manufacturers.

In a statement addressed to the IMF on Wednesday, Bessent called for action to address mismatched trade balances.

“This especially includes strengthening its analysis and engagement on the role non-market policies and practices and exchange rates play in driving external imbalances,” Bessent said.

“Policymakers around the world are having difficult discussions about how to sustain market-based systems amid distortionary policies from some economies that skew competition and hurt employment.”

Divisions and competing interests cloud the prospects for coordination, however.

At the last meeting of G20 finance ministers in Asheville, North Carolina, US, held on August 31 and September 1, member countries failed to issue a joint communique after China objected to language to do with trade.

Oil prices gain as Houthi strikes hit Saudi Aramco and Tehran vows new tactics against shipping in Hormuz.