Whats

Malawians are voting to elect their next president amid a deepening economic crisis in one of Africa’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries.

The small Southeast African nation has been hit with double-digit inflation that has caused food prices to skyrocket for several months now. It came after intense drought events last year. Earlier, in 2023, Cyclone Freddy, which struck the region, hit Malawi the hardest, killing more than 1,000 people and devastating livelihoods.

In Tuesday’s election, voters are also choosing parliamentarians and local councillors across 35 local governments.

Malawi is most known for its tourist hotspots, such as Lake Malawi, Africa’s third-largest freshwater lake, as well as nature and wildlife parks.

The country has a population of 21.6 million. Lilongwe is the capital city, and Blantyre is the commercial nerve centre.

Here’s what to know about the elections:

How does voting happen?

The elections began in the morning on Tuesday and will end by evening.

Some 7.2 million people are registered to vote across 35 local government authorities, according to the electoral commission.

To emerge as president, a candidate must gain more than 50 percent of the vote. If not, then a run-off must be held. Presidential results will be published by September 24.

A total of 299 constituency parliament members and 509 councillors will be elected. Parliamentary results will be published by September 30.

Who are the key contenders?

Seventeen presidential candidates are running for the post. However, the race is largely considered a two-horse race between incumbent President Lazarus Chakwera and former leader Peter Mutharika.

Lazarus Chakwera: The 70-year-old president and leader of the ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP) is hoping to secure his second and — per the constitution —  final term.

The former preacher’s win in 2020 was historic, after a court ruled that there were irregularities in the 2019 election, and ordered a re-run. Chakwera’s win in that second vote marked the first time in African history that an opposition candidate won a re-run election.

However, Chakwera’s tenure has been marked by high levels of inflation and, more recently, fuel shortages. There have also been numerous allegations of corruption, particularly nepotism, against him. In 2021, the president made headlines when he appointed his daughter, Violet Chakwera Mwasinga, as a diplomat to Brussels.

In his campaigns, Chakwera has asked for more time to work on easing the country’s current economic stagnation. He and officials in his government have also blamed some of the hardships on last year’s drought, a cholera outbreak between 2022 and 2024, and the devastation of Cyclone Freddy in February 2023.

Supporters point out that Chakwera has already overseen major road construction work across Malawi and restarted train services after more than 30 years.

He previously ran in 2014, but was unsuccessful.

Peter Mutharika: The 85-year-old leader of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is looking to make a comeback after his earlier second-term bid was defeated by Chakwera in 2020.

A former law professor, Mutharika has campaigned on the economic gains he said Malawi witnessed under him, arguing that things were better during his tenure than under the present leadership. He led Malawi from 2014 to 2020.

While he is credited with lowering inflation and kickstarting major infrastructure projects, Mutharika also faced corruption scandals in his time. In 2018, Malawians took to the streets to protest his alleged involvement in a bribery scandal that had seen a businessman pay a 200,000 kickback to his party. Mutharika was later cleared of wrongdoing.

Critics have speculated about Mutharika’s age, noting that he has not been particularly active during the campaign. Mutharika is the brother of former President Bingu wa Mutharika, who died in office in 2012.

Other notable presidential contenders include:

• Joyce Banda – Malawi’s only female president from 2012 to 2014, from the People’s Party. She was formerly vice president under Bingu wa Mutharika.
• Michael Usi – the former vice president who is from the Odya Zake Alibe Mlandu party.

What’s at stake in this election?

Struggling economy

Although Malawi exports tobacco, tea, and other agricultural products, the country is largely aid-dependent. It is also under pressure from accumulated external debt.

For Malawian voters, rising prices of food and everyday items are the most pressing issue on the ballot. Food costs have gone up by about 30 percent in the past year, but salaries have largely stayed the same. Meanwhile, the costs of fertiliser for the 80 percent of Malawians who survive on subsistence farming have risen.

Economists chalk up the stagnation crisis to a lack of foreign currency, which has limited crucial imports, including fertilisers and fuel.

Presently, the country is facing severe fuel shortages, with hundreds queuing up at fuel stations daily. Chakwera has blamed corrupt officials, who he says are deliberately sabotaging the fuel markets, for the problem.

In May, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) terminated a $175 million loan programme after it failed to give early results. Only $35 million had been disbursed. There will likely be negotiations for a new IMF programme after the elections, officials have said.

Earlier, in February, disgruntled citizens took to the streets Lilongwe and Blantyre in protest against the rising cost of living. Some voters, particularly the young people, feel that not much will change whether they vote or not.

While Mutharika has campaigned on his economic record while in office, Chakwera has pledged a cash transfer programme of 500,000 Malawi kwacha ($290) for newborns, which they can access at the age of 18.

Corruption

Corruption crises have riddled both Mutharika and Chakwera’s governments, something many Malawians say they are tired of.

While Chakwera has talked tough on fighting graft since becoming head of state in 2020, he has faced criticism for nepotism scandals and for handling corruption cases selectively.

Meanwhile, candidate Joyce Banda has also promised to fight corruption if elected. As president, Banda fired her entire cabinet in 2013, following news that some government officials were caught with large amounts of cash in their homes.

Drought and extreme weather

Malawi is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries, although it does not contribute significantly to emissions. With the majority of people relying on subsistence farming for food, extreme weather events often hit Malawi especially hard.

Climate activist Chikondi Chabvuta told Al Jazeera that governments in the past have not invested enough in building systems, such as food systems, that can absorb climate shocks. Women and girls, in particular she said, are often most affected by the double whammy of weather disasters and inflation that often follows.

“Creating a buffer for the people impacted should be a priority because science is telling us these events are going to get worse,” Chabvuta said. “Life for Malawians has to get better by policies that show seriousness,” in tackling environmental challenges, she added.

Millions of people were impacted for several months in 2024, after a severe regional drought destroyed harvests, driven by El Nino weather patterns.

According to the World Food Program, hundreds of thousands across the country were forced to rely on food assistance for survival as Malawi declared an emergency.

In February 2023, Cyclone Freddy, which was one of the deadliest storms to hit Africa in the last two decades, caused 1,216 fatalities. It also wiped out crops and caused similar food shortages.

SAN FRANCISCO — This is the time to bring on the rivals. The Dodgers are used to taking on challengers down the pennant stretch: the San Francisco Giants and San Diego Padres — and, in a previous version of the National League West, the Atlanta Braves and Cincinnati Reds.

The final two weeks of the regular season are upon us. The Dodgers have one remaining head-to-head matchup that really matters — and that series starts Monday at Dodger Stadium, against the Philadelphia Phillies.

The Phillies?

The Phillies have not been realigned into the NL West. However, although the three division champions automatically qualify for the playoffs, the two with the best records earn a bye into the division series. The division champion with the third-best record — right now, that would be the Dodgers — must play in the first round.

The Milwaukee Brewers, the presumed champions of the NL Central, boast the best record in baseball. The Phillies, the presumed champions of the NL East, lead the Dodgers by 4 ½ games. The Dodgers have 13 games to play.

The Dodgers got a bye and lost in the division series in 2022. They got a bye and lost in the division series in 2023. They got a bye and came within one game of elimination in the division series in 2024. Would they be better off not getting a bye and playing in the first round?

“There is not a question in my mind that that does not make sense,” Andrew Friedman, the Dodgers’ president of baseball operations, told me last week. “It is better for your World Series odds to not play those three games.”

The five days off that come with a bye can disrupt the timing of hitters. They also can allow time for injured and weary players to recover — that could be critical for Dodgers catcher Will Smith, in particular — and for the Dodgers to arrange their starting rotation just the way they might like it. And, of course, you can’t be eliminated in the first round if you don’t play in it.

“We have made our life more difficult to this point,” Friedman said, “but I still think we have a really good run in us, and we’ll make it competitive. So obviously these three games against Philly are really important in that.”

What if the three games against the Phillies go poorly?

Even if they don’t, the Dodgers might not win the division. The Padres are closer to the Dodgers than the Dodgers are to the Phillies.

San Diego trails the Dodgers by 2½ games in the NL West.

If the Padres win the NL West, how much would that hurt the Dodgers’ chances of a lengthy postseason run?

Not much, if at all. Both teams almost certainly would end up in the wild-card round.

The NL West champion would play the last team into the NL field, most likely the Giants or New York Mets and maybe even the Reds or Arizona Diamondbacks, with the chance the opponent exhausted its pitching just to get into the playoffs. The other team would play the Chicago Cubs, and would avoid the possibility of facing the surging Phillies until the NLCS.

If the NL West comes down to the last day or two, the Dodgers would have to determine whether to use their best starters on that final weekend or line them up for the wild-card series.

In that scenario, what might be the decisive factor in the Dodgers’ calculus?

The NL West champion would play all three games of the wild-card round at home; the runner-up likely would play all three games on the road. The Dodgers are 48-26 at home, 36-39 on the road. (The Padres are 47-28 at home, 35-40 on the road.)

Would there be any precedent for the Dodgers not minding if the Padres won the NL West?

In 1996, the Dodgers and Padres were tied for the NL West lead heading into the final day of the regular season, with the two teams facing one another. Both teams were guaranteed a playoff spot.

In Game 162, the Dodgers started Ramon Martinez — undefeated in his previous nine starts — then removed him after one inning.

The Padres won the game, and with it the division. The Dodgers started Martinez in their playoff opener three days later. They lost that game, and they were swept in the series by the Braves. The winning pitchers in that series, in order: John Smoltz, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine.

How many games are the Dodgers on pace to win?

Ninety-one.

In Friedman’s previous 10 seasons running the Dodgers, what is the fewest number of games they have won?

Ninety-one, in 2016.

How did the Dodgers do that October?

They earned a bye into the division series, in which they beat the Washington Nationals. They lost to the Chicago Cubs in the league championship series.

After 52 episodes and three movies, the world of “Downton Abbey” is coming to a heartwarming conclusion — for now, at least. The series and the previous two films, 2019’s “Downton Abbey” and 2022’s “Downton Abbey: A New Era,” have followed several characters over an 18-year period, both from the upstairs and downstairs of the grand house. While viewers already said goodbye to the imperious Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith), in the last film when she tragically died onscreen surrounded by her family, there are still many more farewells to come. Here is where we left some of the key characters as “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale” arrives in theaters Sept. 12.

Mary Crawley (Michelle Dockery)

Michelle Dockery in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

Lady Mary wasn’t always in line to take over Downton Abbey, but her ill-fated marriage to Matthew Crawley and the birth of their son George ensured that she could be at the helm of the estate, at least until George came of age. Mary eventually remarried toward the end of the series, to race car driver Henry Talbot, but “The Grand Finale” sees the couple divorced and Mary on the outs from society. Still, she has clever ideas about how to keep Downton Abbey afloat and to push it into the modern age as she finally takes the reins from her father. “From the start, she always had a strong personality,” creator Julian Fellowes told The Times in 2022. “And I think what we’ve watched over the years is how she has come to harness her strength, master it and use it to achieve what she wants.”

Edith Pelham (Laura Carmichael)

Laura Carmichael, right, and Elizabeth McGovern in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

For many years Lady Edith was the passed-over second daughter, but by the end of the series she was firmly ensconced as the formidable Marchioness of Hexham. She and her husband Herbert “Bertie” Pelham are happily raising two children and she has become a voice of reason for Mary, offering counsel to the sister who once overshadowed her. “The Grand Finale” even gives Edith a satisfying moment of fortitude when she stands up for the family. “By the time we leave her, Edith is a strong woman and capable of big decisions,” Fellowes says.

Robert and Cora Crawley (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern)

Elizabeth McGovern and Hugh Bonneville in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

The Crawley clan’s patriarch and matriarch have gone through a lot since “Downton Abbey” premiered, including the loss of their daughter Sybil and multiple financial challenges. Cora dealt with a health scare in “A New Era” while both grieved the death of Violet, whose presence still looms in “The Grand Finale.” Although he technically left Mary in charge of Downton Abbey at the end of “A New Era,” Robert is struggling to settle into the next chapter of his life. It’s up to Cora, his always-steady companion, to help him move forward.

Tom Branson (Allen Leech)

Allen Leech in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

After heroically saving the day in the first “Downton Abbey” film, the widowed Tom married Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton) in “Downtown Abbey: A New Era,” giving his daughter Sybbie a mother once again. By the end of the second film, Tom and Lucy have a baby of their own and are living away from Downton. The character already got his much-deserved happily ever after and now shows up to dole out sage advice and support for the family. “I felt Tom Branson was the only one we hadn’t really settled in the series,” Leech told me in 2019. Now, he is.

Daisy Mason (Sophie McShera) and Andrew Parker (Michael Fox)

Sophie McShera, second from left, in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features )

Daisy began her journey at Downton Abbey as a belabored kitchen maid, but eventually the estate’s revered cook Mrs. Patmore took her under her wing. She married the dying William Mason during the series and later settled down with Andrew Parker, a footman in the house who has now taken over for Mr. Carson. In the spirit of the younger generation stepping forward, Daisy takes over the kitchen in “The Grand Finale,” an important moment of growth for the character.

Isobel Crawley (Penelope Wilton)

From left, Penelope Wilton, Allen Leech, Michelle Dockery and Paul Giamatti in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

It took some time for Isobel to establish herself at Downton Abbey, but her friendship with the Dowager Countess and her relationship to the family became invaluable throughout the series. She married Richard Grey after her son Matthew’s death and continued her good work with the community’s hospital throughout the episodes. Following Violet’s passing, Isobel has taken up the mantle to organize the county fair — a job that comes with some challenges.

Anna Bates (Joanne Froggatt) and John Bates (Brendan Coyle)

Joanne Froggatt in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

Anna Bates has always been one of Downton Abbey’s most loyal servants and a thoughtful friend to Lady Mary. She married valet John Bates at the beginning of Season 3 and the couple went through numerous ups and downs in the years that followed, including several miscarriages. They got a much-deserved happy end in the series finale when Anna gave birth to their first child. The films haven’t shaken their contentment and “The Grand Finale” brings another uplifting arrival for the pair.

Joseph Molesley (Kevin Doyle)

Kevin Doyle, left, and Michael Fox in “Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.”

(Rory Mulvey / Focus Features)

Mr. Molesley endeared audiences with his hapless but well-meaning misadventures in the series, eventually transitioning from footman to local schoolteacher. He got his due in “A New Era” when he proved himself to be a skilled screenwriter and charmed Phyllis Baxter. In “The Grand Finale,” the couple are married and Mr. Molesley is endeavoring to boost his film career, although he hasn’t left his time at Downtown Abbey in the past.

Violence has broken out on the streets of Indonesia after a motorcycle taxi driver was run over and killed by police.

The president has apologised and appealed for calm, but protests continue.

What’s driving the anger, and how will the government respond?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Abigail Limuria – Cofounder of What Is Up Indonesia?, a digital media platform that unpacks Indonesian sociopolitics

Vedi Hadiz – Professor of Asian studies at the University of Melbourne

Wirya Adiwena – Deputy director of Amnesty International Indonesia

If you’re planning to take Social Security in 2025, you’re likely nearing retirement. While that’s an exciting chapter in life, even small mistakes can sometimes throw a wrench in your plans — so it’s critical to ensure you have a strong plan heading into your senior years.

There’s not necessarily a right or wrong Social Security strategy, but there is one aspect that trips many retirees up: knowing how your claiming age will affect your lifetime benefit.

Your benefit will be locked in for life

The age you file for benefits will have an immediate and lifelong impact on your benefit amount. However, many people are unaware of just how much their decision will affect their monthly income.

Image source: Getty Images.

According to a 2025 survey from the Nationwide Retirement Institute, only 21% of U.S. adults can correctly name their full retirement age (FRA) — which is the age at which you’re entitled to your full benefit based on your work history. Your FRA will depend on your birth year, but everyone’s will fall between ages 66 and 67.

Filing before your FRA will result in a reduced payment, which is also a point of confusion for many people. The survey found that 40% of Americans believe that if they file for benefits early, their payments will automatically go up once they reach their FRA. In reality, though, these reductions are permanent, and those smaller payments will be locked in for life.

These reductions can be significant, too. If you have an FRA of 67 years old, filing at 62 will slash your checks by 30%. The average retired worker receives around $588 less per month at age 62 compared to age 67, according to 2024 data from the Social Security Administration.

Data source: Social Security Administration. Table by author.

Not knowing exactly how your age will affect your lifetime benefit amount is a simple mistake to make, so you’re in good company if you’re among the 40% of Americans in this boat. But if you’re heading into retirement expecting your benefit to increase by hundreds of dollars per month in a few years, it could be a costly mistake.

The best move you can make right now

Before you begin claiming benefits, one of the best things you can do is check your estimated benefit amount.

You can do this by reviewing your statements through your mySocialSecurity account online, where you’ll see an estimate of your future benefit based on your real earnings. This is also a prime opportunity to double-check that your earning history is correct, because if there’s any information missing or incorrect, it can affect your benefit amount.

The estimate you see on your statements is your full benefit amount, or the payment you’ll receive by filing at your FRA. From there, you can determine exactly how your claiming age will affect the size of your checks.

Data source: Social Security Administration. Table by author.

You can also file for benefits at any age between birthdays, but for every month you claim before your FRA, your benefits will be reduced slightly more. By having at least a rough estimate of how much will be deducted, it will be easier to plan accordingly.

Keep in mind, too, that if you’re filing after your FRA (up to age 70), that will also alter your benefit. If you have an FRA of 67 and you file at 70, you’ll collect your full benefit, plus a bonus of 24% per month.

There’s no right or wrong time to take Social Security, but it is important to know how that decision will affect your benefit. When you know what to expect from Social Security heading into retirement, you can rest easier knowing you’re as prepared as possible.

The deadly downing of a Colombian National Police (CNP) UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter by a drone on Thursday is the latest sign of the growing vulnerability of rotary-wing aircraft to these attacks. While apparently the first such incident in the Western Hemisphere, the tactic was developed by Ukraine to strike Russian helicopters and has reportedly spread to Asia as well. The downing comes as militaries are rethinking the utility of helicopters due to myriad threats, including drones, which is a danger we have been warning about for years.

The CNP helicopter was hit by a drone while “providing security to officers engaged in manual coca crop eradication efforts,” Antioquia Governor Andres Julian Rendon stated on X. “We have activated the hospital network and are closely monitoring this news, which is so painful for democracy and sad for our Forces. In that area, FARC dissidents and the Gulf Clan are operating.”

Video emerging from the scene shows the helicopters slowly approaching a landing zone. From the angle where the video was taken, the helicopter’s landing and the attack are obscured, but the sound of an explosion is heard and blackish gray smoke is seen wafting up. 

Another video, reportedly taken by the attackers, shows a different view of the aftermath of the strike. None of these videos, however, clearly depicts the method of attack.

At least 12 people aboard the helicopter were killed. Colombian President Gustavo Petro blamed the helicopter attack, along with a car bomb strike on a Colombian military base, on dissident factions of the now-defunct FARC guerrilla group that have rejected a 2016 peace agreement to end a prolonged internal conflict that has left more than 450,000 dead in the country.

This incident highlights several disturbing developments, especially regarding the vulnerability of helicopters to drone attacks. That concern directly led to South Korea cancelling a multi-billion-dollar deal to buy 36 AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters.

Yu Yong-weon, a member of South Korea’s National Assembly belonging to the People Power Party, told The Korea Times that the vulnerability of helicopters to proliferated air defenses and loitering munitions/drones that have been showcased to the world in Ukraine spurred the decision.

“Drones and smart systems are redefining the modern battlefield,” Yu explained. “Rather than clinging to expensive legacy platforms, we must invest in capabilities that reflect the future of warfare.”

We previously predicted that drone attacks on helicopters would become a major problem. The danger is rising due to the widespread proliferation of weaponized drones across the world. This is in addition to all the other growing threats that put helicopters, especially those approaching contested landing zones, in the crosshairs.

As we noted in a previous story: Beyond traditional ground-based air defenses, which are becoming far more capable and deeply integrated/networked at an accelerating rate, helicopters have to now contend with FPV drones and loitering SAMs, as well as loitering interceptor drones, that can be used against rotary wing aircraft, as well. Countermeasures to some of these threats really have not caught up. The threat posed by drones, in general, has also vastly reinvigorated proliferation of short-range air defenses for counter-UAS needs, but many of these systems can also engage helicopters. Then there is the aerial threat, with fighter and support aircraft becoming more capable of spotting low and slow flying helicopters thanks to advanced sensors. The distances involved with future wars alone could relegate even the most advanced traditional helicopters into support roles. All this creates an increasingly complex and unpredictable operational reality for military helicopters, even in low-to-medium threat environments.

You can see a Russian helicopter being attacked by a Ukrainian first-person view (FPV) drone in the following video.

The risk posed to helicopters from small weaponized drones, especially FPV types, is rapidly expanding as this technology migrates to state and non-state actors around the globe. Small teams using a guided weapon against a helicopter used to require having man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), also known as shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, or at least an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), the latter of which only really works when engaging a helicopter within a narrow window of its performance envelope. Basically, this includes when it is landing, taking off or sitting on the ground. These are both expensive, hard-to-obtain weapons that require proprietary support.

A FPV drone, on the other hand, can be obtained easily and for a fraction of the cost and can fly out to an incoming helicopter and blow it out of the sky with extreme agility and precision. Acting in a point defense role, defending key areas where helicopters may approach, can now be done by a couple of guys and their FPV drones. They can also react fast and don’t have to expose themselves to engage an airborne target, unlike a MANPADS or ATGM fire team. The drones can also be reused if they do not find a target, meaning they can actively patrol for incoming helicopters, if need be.

This is creating a whole new set of problems for helicopter crews. The launch of the drones cannot be detected by onboard missile approach warning systems and the drones are very small, making them hard to identify and evade. Electronic warfare systems are perhaps the best possible defense against these threats, but there has been slow movement when it comes to adapting such systems for helicopters. There is also the reality that fiber optic wire-controlled FPV drones give off no radio frequency emissions and are not jammable. They are also well-suited for providing point defense against helicopters, as their wires have a far lower chance of getting hung up when going after an aircraft in the air.

Obviously, these issues are especially vexing for the special operations rotary-wing community, which goes after targets in contested areas against groups that can easily access this technology.

Once again, the FPV threat is in addition to the growing threats to helicopters from advanced integrated air defense systems, next-generation MANPADS, advanced look-down radars on fighters and AEW&C aircraft, as well as drone interceptors and more advanced loitering munitions. All of this is putting the helicopter’s future efficacy in many mission sets in question. AI will fuse with lower-end drones in the near future making them capable of autonomous air defense operations, as well. This will allow persistent air patrols in areas where enemy helicopter traffic is most likely to occur, including behind enemy lines.

The attack in Colombia comes months after we reported that rebels fighting Myanmar’s junta say they used an FPV drone to down an Mi-17 Hip transport helicopter attempting to land with supplies. 

Footage emerged on social media showing the video feed of what purported to be an FPV drone operated by the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) careening toward the helicopter, which was hovering just a few feet off the ground at the time. The video cuts off as the FPV drone gets right next to the helicopter’s rotor blades. The video then shows a different angle of what appears to be a small explosion amongst the Mi-17’s rotors. The helicopter reportedly later crashed a short distance away, killing everyone on board.

Rekaman Video Amatir dan dari Drone FPV milik kelompok Pemberontak Etnis Kachin Myanmar ( Kachin Independence Army ) saat menghantam satu dari 3 Helikopter Mil-17 Angkatan Udara Myanmar yang tengah mendrop Pasukan di kawasan Bhamo pada tanggal 20 Mei lalu. pic.twitter.com/rY8zhOSzMo

— 🦅 Golden Eagle 🦅 (@Y_D_Y_P) May 22, 2025

Myanmar’s military government, however, chalked the crash up to mechanical failure. The War Zone cannot independently verify either claim, although it is generally understood a drone took it down.

Another troubling aspect of this crash is how drug organizations in the Western Hemisphere are increasing the use of drones to execute attacks.

We have reported frequently about how Mexican cartels have been using drones as weapons against rivals and government targets. These groups even reportedly sent members to fight for the Russians against Ukraine to learn how to use FPV drones.

In an investigation by Intelligence Online alleges that Mexico’s Centro Nacional de Inteligencia/CNI sent a report to Ukrainian intelligence w/ concerns that cartel affiliated Mexicans are joining the Ukrainian Foreign Legion to receive drone training.https://t.co/SdlXYF4r6w

— Pernicious Propaganda (@natsecboogie) July 30, 2025

Colombian rebels began using weaponized drones in April 2024, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Since then, “the military here says there have been 301 strikes with unmanned aerial vehicles, more than two-thirds of them in Cauca and Norte de Santander provinces,” the Journal noted. “Both regions are covered in coca, the plant used to make cocaine, with heavily armed militias fighting each other over drug routes. At least 22 soldiers and police officers have died in the attacks.”

Beyond those concerns are reports that Russians are training the Colombian groups how to fight with drones, another sign of how lessons learned in the war in Ukraine are being spread globally.

“Russian contractors and former military personnel are also training FARC dissidents and ELN groups in the use and modification of explosive drones,” the Colombian El Tiempo news outlet reported back in June. “They are doing so from Venezuelan territory, with the knowledge and support of that country’s government, highlighting the growing foreign interference in the Colombian conflict.”

“We know that Russia and Iran support Venezuela with technical capabilities, and from there, Colombian combatants are being trained,” the publication added, citing an anonymous military source.

The attack on the CNP helicopter is the latest iteration of the guerrillas’ drone war.

“Dissidents already employ swarm tactics, microdrones, and some modified devices with thermal cameras and alternating frequencies to evade jammers,” El Tiempo noted. “These drone attacks have left four soldiers dead and more than 50 uniformed personnel injured, as well as one civilian killed and seven injured.”

We believe that it is worth pointing out, as there are claims that a drone was used in this attack, that both FARC & ELN groups are being trained by Russian contractors & former military members on how to utilize drones in conflict within Venezuela as reported in June this year. https://t.co/y6N5XPyHkx

— Pernicious Propaganda (@natsecboogie) August 22, 2025

The claim that the Colombian rebels trained in Venezuela raises the specter that these efforts were conducted with the approval or knowledge of that country’s leader, Nicolas Maduro. As we wrote earlier this week, U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered several warships and thousands of troops deployed toward Venezuela. At least part of that movement is directly aimed at Maduro, a source familiar with the operations told us. His administration considers Maduro a “narco-terrorist.”

No es casual que apenas días después de que Trump se reuniera con Putin, suceda esto. Venezuela es un punto estratégico para el kremlin. Si no hay acuerdo de paz, Maduro tiene sus días contados. pic.twitter.com/E662kAFfCQ

— Fabrizio Mercado Soria (@fabriziosoria) August 20, 2025

Meanwhile, the overall use of drones by drug and insurgent groups is raising alarm bells in Washington.

As we have written in the past, there are increasing concerns that Mexican cartels could expand their use of drones across the border as the Trump administration ramps up its pressure on these groups. That has led the general in charge of the border security and drone interdiction efforts to seek greater permission to shoot down drones.

Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot testified to the House Armed Services Committee in April that since Trump took office, he “proposed … a change to the rule of force.” It would “allow us to shoot down or bring down drones that are surveilling over our deployed and mobile troops … not just that are in self-defense, but anything that’s surveilling and planning the next attack on us within five miles of the border.” 

“Because they’re mobile,” U.S. troops on the border are not allowed to take down drones under current law, Guillot, the commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the joint U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), added. You can read more about the various limitations on the military’s use of force against drones in the United States in our deep dive here.

As the evolution of the weaponized low-end drone continues to accelerate, the threat to helicopters from them will only increase. As it sits now, there is not much being done at scale to combat it, so more of these incidents are likely to hit headlines in the coming months and years.

Contact the author: [email protected]

President Donald Trump and his allies have kicked off a redistricting fight in the United States as the country’s two main political parties angle for advantage in the 2026 midterm elections.

In an effort to maintain control of Congress, Republican leaders in the right-wing stronghold of Texas have pushed to redraw the state’s congressional districts in a way that would net the party as many as five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.

Trump has encouraged the effort, calling it a “big WIN for the Great State of Texas”. The state’s Senate is expected to vote on the new district plans as early as Thursday evening.

But that effort has prompted a backlash. The Democratic-leaning state of California responded in kind by passing a plan on Thursday to abandon nonpartisan redistricting and create new congressional maps that could bring the Democrats five more seats, negating the effort in Texas.

Party leaders in other states, including Missouri and Florida, have also indicated they may seek to rejigger their districts to pick up more seats.

The standoff points to larger questions about how to ensure fair representation in Congress and how Trump has sought to exert wide-reaching control over the country’s political system.

With Trump’s approval rating slipping to about 40 percent, Republicans risk losing their narrow, 219-person majority in the 435-seat House of Representatives in the midterm races.

So what is redistricting? And what could it mean for upcoming elections? We answer those questions and more in this quick explainer.

What is redistricting?

Simply put, the practice of redistricting refers to drawing the boundaries of an election district.

Ideally, districts should be designed as an accurate and proportionate reflection of the area’s population. Maps are generally updated every 10 years, in accordance with the latest population census.

But political parties can take steps to shape districts to their benefit, in a process sometimes referred to as gerrymandering.

That involves finding creative ways to maximise the number of seats a party can win by carving districts based on demographics and voting trends, to increase the electoral weight of certain groups and minimise the influence of others.

“Politicians can look at information about the partisan and demographic breakdown of an area and stack the decks in their favour,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego.

This practice has a long and fraught history in the US, especially in states with histories of segregation and discrimination, where maps were often drawn to dilute representation for minority voters.

What is happening in Texas?

While redistricting is far from new, Texas has been in the spotlight recently for a particularly overt partisan effort.

Part of the controversy stems from the involvement of President Trump, who prompted Texas Republicans to redraw maps.

In June and July, reports began to emerge that the White House was holding calls with Texas state leaders to tee up a redistricting battle, in preparation for the 2026 midterms.

Despite early concerns that the effort could backfire, Republican lawmakers in the state quickly put the plan in motion.

Speaking by phone to CNBC on August 5, Trump seemed to suggest that the makeup of the US Congress should reflect his success in the 2024 presidential race.

“We should have many more seats in Congress,” Trump said. “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.”

The state’s House of Representatives passed a new election map on Wednesday, and the Texas Senate is expected to do the same in the next few days. The new maps would carve out five additional districts in areas where Trump performed strongly during the last election.

How did Texas Democrats respond?

Texas Democrats condemned the redistricting as a partisan power grab and tried to prevent a vote on the new congressional map.

In early August, they left the state in a bid to deny the Texas legislature the quorum it needed to move the plan forward.

But as a minority voting bloc in the firmly Republican state legislature, the Democrats ultimately failed to stop the redistricting scheme.

While away, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the absent Democrats’ arrest, and the Republicans in the state House echoed that effort with a vote to issue arrest warrants. Abbott also threatened the Democrats with criminal charges, including for bribery, if they solicited funds during their absence.

What’s more, the Texas Democrats faced a series of reported bomb threats at their Illinois hotels. Eventually, after two weeks, they returned to their home state, allowing the vote to proceed.

Democratic leaders have said that, while they did not stop the redistricting push, they drew attention to the issue and are preparing to challenge the new maps in court.

Do both parties gerrymander?

Yes, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering, and the practice has been employed throughout US history in varying contexts.

In recent years, however, the practice has been more commonly associated with right-leaning states.

Princeton University’s Gerrymandering Project found that states with the most severe gerrymandering tend to be Republican-led states in the southern US, where the practice has historically been employed to dilute the influence of Black voters.

The project also found that a handful of states, such as Oregon, Illinois and Nevada, have partisan election maps that heavily favour Democrats.

Some Democrats previously criticised gerrymandering as anti-democratic and pushed for changes to ensure that redistricting is nonpartisan.

“Public servants should earn the votes of the people that they hope to represent. What Republicans are trying to do in Texas is to have politicians choose their voters,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently told reporters.

But as Trump seeks to increase his party’s advantage, some Democratic leaders have urged the party to change its approach and “fight fire with fire” through more explicitly partisan tactics.

Is gerrymandering legal?

Courts have, on occasion, struck down gerrymandered congressional maps on the basis that they violate the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by disadvantaging racial minorities and other demographics.

But the Supreme Court has ruled it will not intervene in questions of partisan gerrymandering, though state courts can.

How is California responding?

Following the developments in Texas, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his state would begin its own redistricting effort meant to add five congressional seats to the Democrats’ tally in the US House of Representatives.

California, the largest state by population, is considered solidly left-leaning: Nearly 47 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats in 2023, compared with 24 percent for Republicans.

On Thursday, the state’s legislature voted largely along party lines to forward the redistricting plan to Newsom’s desk for a signature.

“It’s the fact that this has been so baldly political and driven by demands from Trump that has allowed Democrats to take the gloves off,” said Kousser, the political science professor.

Newsom has depicted his actions as an unfortunate but necessary response to the Texas Republicans.

He said he will shelve California’s redistricting plans if Texas agrees to do the same, but he argues that Democrat-led states cannot “unilaterally disarm” and allow partisan redistricting to disadvantage them in Congress.

“Other blue states need to stand up,” Newsom said as he announced his plan. “We need to be firm.”

Former Democratic President Barack Obama said that, while his “preference” is to do away with gerrymandering, Newsom was taking a “responsible approach” by countering the Republicans.

Are other states considering redistricting plans?

Yes. The Republican-led state of Ohio announced redistricting plans, and Republican leaders in Florida, Indiana and Missouri have also suggested they will follow suit.

Meanwhile, officials in the Democrat-led state of Illinois are also mulling changes to the map-drawing process. New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul also said that her state may pursue redistricting if Texas moves forward with its plan.

How could this affect future elections?

It is unclear how much this redistricting battle will tip the scales for either party, particularly as Democrats consider steps to negate Republican gains.

But experts say there are generally more Republican-led states where redistricting might be viable

The primary objective is to gain an advantage in anticipation of the 2026 midterms, when control of Congress is up for grabs.

While each state receives exactly two senators, the number of representatives in the House varies depending on each state’s population size. All 435 seats in the House will be up for grabs in the midterms, and each congressional district is responsible for selecting the winner for one of those seats.

Trump last month called Texas the greatest prize – “the biggest one” – in the redistricting battle.

On Thursday, he framed the five seats Republicans hope to gain there as integral to his platform: “On our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself. Texas never lets us down.”

But halfway through Trump’s first term in office, the Republicans lost their majority in the House during the midterm elections. That loss gave Democrats greater power to stymie Trump’s legislative priorities.

“Trump is urging his allies to redraw districts as a way to insulate him and his political party from possible backlash in the midterms,” said Kousser.

Isn’t California doing the same thing as Texas?

Newsom has attempted to assuage concerns about California’s redistricting scheme by contrasting his plan with the one in Texas.

He says that California’s new map will go before voters in November for approval, unlike in Texas, and will only go into effect if Republican-led states do the same.

Still, his efforts would require sidelining a nonpartisan redistricting panel previously approved by California voters.

But Kousser says that Trump’s push for greater sway over the country’s political system may induce more Democrats to adopt partisan redistricting for themselves.

“Newsom was explicit that there is a way to back down from this arms race,” he said. “But he’s also saying that, if Republicans don’t back away from this, Democrats will use these means as well.”

Pakistan has been reeling from flooding triggered by torrential rains, with nearly 400 people killed since August 14.

On Wednesday, Karachi was inundated following a heavy downpour, paralysing the southern port city of 20 million people less than a week after deadly flash floods swept away villages in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

More than 700 people have been killed in the flooding and landslides across the South Asian nation since June, with forecasters warning of further downpours until Saturday.

So why have floods in Pakistan been so intense, and what is the solution to the South Asian country’s flooding problem?

Where did it flood in Pakistan?

The Buner district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has been the worst hit, with more than 200 people killed and extensive damage to homes and public infrastructure across the northwestern mountainous province since August 14.

The Himalayan region of Gilgit-Baltistan, as well as Pakistan-administered Kashmir, was also affected.

Karachi, the capital of the southern Sindh province, was hit by floods after rainfall on Tuesday. Videos circulating on social media showed cars and motorbikes submerged in water.

How many people have died in the floods?

On Thursday, nine people died and 15 were injured across the country, according to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). Seven of these deaths were in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, while two were in Sindh.

On Wednesday, 41 people died and 11 people were injured across the country. At least 19 of these deaths were in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 11 deaths were in Sindh, and 11 deaths were reported in Gilgit-Baltistan.

Some 759 people have died, including 186 children, and 993 have been injured since the onset of the monsoon season in June. More than 4,000 houses have been damaged due to flooding in the same period.

What do rescue efforts look like?

The head of the NDMA, Lieutenant General Inam Haider Malik, said that more than 25,000 people had been rescued from flood-hit areas, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

The army and air force have also been pressed into action in rescue efforts.

On Wednesday, 2,300 people were treated in 14 active medical camps in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, according to the NDMA. Relief items have also been distributed among those affected by the floods.

What is causing the floods in Pakistan?

While the exact cause of the floods is yet to be determined, several factors could have contributed to the deluge.

“While climate change plays a critical role in intensifying flooding events in Pakistan, other factors such as urbanisation, deforestation, inadequate infrastructure, and poor river management also contribute significantly,” Ayyoob Sharifi, a professor at Hiroshima University in Japan, told Al Jazeera.

Climate change

Sharifi told Al Jazeera that climate change is causing monsoon rainfall to intensify, resulting in more frequent extreme precipitation events.

A study co-authored by Sharifi and published in February this year, indicates that cities such as Lahore and Faisalabad could experience increased rainfall under certain scenarios, heightening the risk of urban flooding.

He added that rising temperatures allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture, leading to heavier downpours during storms. In northern Pakistan, these higher temperatures are also accelerating glacial melting, which increases the likelihood of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). These are floods that occur when water is suddenly released from a glacial lake.

Earlier this month, a GLOF occurred in Pakistan’s northern region of Hunza, when the Shisper Glacier swelled the Hassanabad nullah, damaging infrastructure and destroying cultivable land, Dawn reported on August 8.

While Pakistan is responsible for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions according to European Union data, the country bears the brunt of climate disaster, the country’s former Finance Minister Miftah Ismail told CNBC in 2022.

Heavy rain over a short period

Fahad Saeed, a climate scientist at the Berlin-based think tank, Climate Analytics, told Al Jazeera that the flooding was caused by higher-intensity rainfall. This means that there was a large amount of rain over a short period.

In Buner, more than 150mm (6 inches) of rain fell in just one hour on Friday morning.

In 2022, Pakistan endured its most severe monsoon season ever recorded, resulting in at least 1,700 deaths and causing an estimated $40bn in damage. Saeed said the 2022 floods were unexpected because of the areas they hit, ravaging arid or semiarid parts of northern Sindh that usually do not experience heavy rainfall.

However, rainfall this year has occurred within or around the region that normally experiences monsoon rain, he said. What is unusual this time is the sheer intensity of the rain.

Soil unable to absorb the rain in rural areas

Saeed explained that when there is rapid rainfall in a rural area over a short time, the soil does not get enough time to absorb the rainwater. “The rain doesn’t infiltrate into the soil, rather, it flows off the surface. It results in mudslides and soil erosion.”

This applies to rural areas in the northern parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and parts of Gilgit-Baltistan.

“What happens is that normally, if you are living next to the rivers, your house is prone to get destroyed or inundated. But this time, what happened is that even if you are on the slopes of the mountain, the rainfall is so intense that because of the mudslide and the landslides, it destroyed the homes at the elevations,” Saeed explained.

Issues with the drainage system in urban areas

Karachi primarily relies on natural stormwater drains, or nullahs, for rainwater to be drained off.

Research shows that Karachi generates more than 20,000 tonnes of solid waste per day, and the nullahs are clogged by this rubbish.

During an event on urban flooding last year, hydrologist Sana Adnan pointed out that cleaning nullahs only before the monsoon season significantly contributes to flooded roads, emphasising that heavy rains can happen at any time of the year, not just during the monsoon, local outlet Dawn News reported.

Architect and planner Arif Hasan told Dawn in 2020 that due to the absence of a sustainable social housing policy, working-class families set up informal settlements across these nullahs. These informal settlements and formal developments use the nullahs for sewage disposal.

Hasan wrote that since the mid-1960s, Karachi’s waste disposal system has been set up for sewage to go into nullahs.

Rapid urbanisation and migration

Sharifi said that another reason behind urban flooding is that rapid and unplanned urbanisation reduces natural drainage and increases surface run-off, exacerbating flooding in cities like Karachi and Lahore.

Saeed added that cities are growing due to the rapid migration of people from rural areas into urban centres, and climate change might also cause this.

“Whenever somebody migrates from a rural to an urban area, they tend to move towards big cities like Lahore or Karachi,” Saeed said.

He explained that climate change can result in low crop yields, compromising the livelihoods of farmers in rural areas, leading them to move their families to cities.

“Once they reach the city, they are most likely to settle in informal settlements. Over time, they try to become part of that society. Meanwhile, city management struggles to provide necessary civic facilities, creating a kind of feedback loop.”

Deforestation and river management issues

“Loss of forest cover in upstream areas reduces the land’s ability to absorb water, increasing the volume of run-off into rivers,” Sharifi said.

Buner is mostly hilly, with steep slopes leading into narrow valleys. The area’s loose, easily eroded soil and ongoing deforestation make it especially prone to landslides and flash floods.

Sharifi added that the absence of green infrastructure such as parks, wetlands and permeable pavements also exacerbates flooding by removing natural systems that would otherwise help absorb and slow water flow, reducing the risk of flooding.

“Inefficient management of river systems, including the lack of proper embankments and flood control measures, contributes to riverine flooding.”

Limitations in early warning systems 

The study that Sharifi co-authored identified limitations in the early warning systems which predict rainfall.

He explained that the currently used models often fail to capture regional and local climate nuances, leading to inaccuracies in projecting extreme precipitation events at smaller scales.

Sharifi added that most studies focus on large cities, leaving small cities underrepresented.

What measures can Pakistan take to mitigate flooding?

“Mitigating flooding in Pakistan requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses both structural and non-structural measures,” Sharifi said.

He explained that structural steps include building and maintaining drainage systems, reservoirs and restoring natural waterways.

Urban areas should use green infrastructure like permeable pavements and rain gardens to absorb water and prevent run-off. Urban planning must also manage land use to avoid building in flood-prone areas.

Non-structural measures include the latest early warning systems, better disaster preparedness, community education on flood risks and stronger disaster management coordination.

Saeed said that Pakistan is experiencing multiple facets of climate change impacts.

He said that addressing climate change calls for holistic, integrated planning across different departments.

“We can no longer afford to work in silos,” Saeed said, explaining that Pakistan has federal-level ministries for climate change, development, water, industry and agriculture.

Climate scientists, academics and other experts need to become a part of climate policymaking in the country, he said.

How is the current flood situation in Pakistan?

Rainwater accumulation has been cleared from the northwestern regions of Pakistan. However, infrastructure has sustained damage.

The Sindh Information Department made a series of posts on X on Wednesday saying that stormwater has been cleared from roads in multiple neighbourhoods in Karachi, including North Nazimabad. Safoora, Clifton and Liaquatabad.

Dawn reported on Wednesday that rainwater had accumulated in some roads near Karachi’s major I I Chundrigar Road.

Is more flooding expected in Pakistan?

Yes, the NDMA posted an emergency alert on X at about noon (07:18 GMT) saying that extremely heavy rainfall is expected in Sindh’s cities Karachi, Hyderabad, Thatta, Badin, Mirpurkhas, Sukkur and adjacent areas “within the next 12-24 hours”.

The NDMA added that there is a risk of more than 50 to 100mm of rainfall over a short period raising the risks of urban flooding in Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur and Mirpurkhas.

The NDMA added that Sindh’s rural regions Thatta, Badin, Jamshoro and Dadu are at risk of sudden flooding due to rising water levels in the Indus River and its tributaries. Low-lying regions may be inundated, with major highways and local roads potentially submerged, severely affecting transport. Extended disruptions to power and telecommunication services are also expected.

The authority has warned residents in flood-prone areas to move livestock and valuable items to safe locations, keep emergency supplies ready, be careful when using electrical appliances and stay away from submerged roads and from electrical poles.

The Pakistan Meteorological Department issued a similar warning on its X account on Wednesday, listing more areas prone to upcoming floods in the southern region of the Balochistan province, such as Makran and Khuzdar.

The NDMA has predicted monsoon spells across the country until September 10.

Violence in Serbia has erupted, involving government supporters, police and anticorruption demonstrators who have been on the streets for months, demanding elections

President Aleksandar Vucic says the protests are part of a foreign plot to oust him.

Why has violence flared up – and what’s next?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Mirko Dautovic – International affairs commentator for Balkan media

Florian Bieber – Professor of Southeast European history and politics at Graz University

Tatyana Kekic – Correspondent covering Serbia for bne IntelliNews

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corp. has largely stayed on the sidelines of the streaming wars.

That ends next week.

Fox, which owns the most-watched cable news channel Fox News and has TV rights to major sporting events such as the NFL and MLB post-season baseball, has remained committed to the declining pay TV business.

But with 65 million households no longer hooked up to cable or satellite services, the company making its channels available to non-pay TV customers for the first time with Fox One, a new streaming platform that will launch Aug. 21.

“There is a growing audience outside of cable,” said Pete Distad, chief executive of direct-to-consumer for Fox Corp., who previewed the service Thursday at a press briefing at the company’s New York headquarters. “We need to give to give those cord-cutters and cord-nevers access to our content.”

For $19.99 a month, Fox One will provide subscribers with their local Fox TV affiliate that carries a package of NFL games, plus two Fox Sports cable channels. A full year subscription will cost $199.

Fox One will also carry Fox News Media’s channels, which include Fox News, Fox Weather and Fox Business. It will provide replays of Fox programming on demand, with access to current seasons of entertainment programs and DVR capabilities with unlimited storage.

But the main selling point of Fox One will be the company’s array of live events, which include next year’s FIFA World Cup. The service will be promoted with the marketing tag line, “We Live For Live.”

Fox Sports’ Kevin Burkhardt talks with NFL broadcast partner Tom Brady before a 2024 preseason game at So-Fi Stadium.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Sports is the driver for the service. Fox Corp. and Walt Disney Co. have already agreed to offer a package deal for Fox One and the upcoming ESPN direct-to-consumer service also launching next week, for $39.99 a month, a savings of $10. ESPN will charge subscribers $29.99 on its own.

Distad said his company will look at more opportunities to bundle Fox One with other streaming services.

Until now, Fox’s biggest investment in streaming was the acquisition of Tubi, an ad-supported free streaming service that has grown to capture 1% of all U.S. TV viewing according to Nielsen.

Fox Corp. sold its TV and movie studio assets to Disney in 2019, partly because the company did not believe it could compete with deep-pocketed tech firms such as Amazon and Apple, which have spent freely on producing content for their streaming platforms.

But Amazon and Netflix — which acquired NFL rights in recent years — have shown that they can draw large audiences for live sports events, an area where Fox Corp. is already deeply entrenched.

The real test for the new streaming product will be the appetite for Fox News. The conservative-leaning news channel dominates its competitors in the TV ratings. Whether consumers who have cut the cable cord will be willing to pay to stream the channel’s live feed is an open question.

“Nobody knows how many news fans are outside of the pay TV universe,” Distad said.

Distad is encouraged by the reach of Fox News content online after it airs live on the TV network. Fox News scored 1.5 billion views on YouTube and 3.7 billion views on social media platforms in the last quarter.

Fox News Media’s existing streaming channel, Fox Nation, will be offered as a $5 add-on for Fox One for a total of $24.99 a month. The service has documentaries, true crime shows and movies that appeal to the Fox News audience.

Bret Baier, anchor of “Special Report” on Fox News.

(Fox News)

Fox Corp. executives are keeping their expectations low. It’s priced high enough so that the consumer who is currently happy with their current cable TV subscription is not likely to cancel.

But Distad said profit projections are “aggressive” as the platform will not spend money to create original programming. All of the content is being provided from its existing networks.

Investment in original programming has been the main obstacle to profitability for the streaming services that have proliferated in recent years.

Distad said the company is considering putting podcasts on the Fox One platform. Fox Corp. company recently acquired Red Seat Ventures, a media company that specializes in providing business support and technical services for right-leaning podcasts.

United States President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday in a bid to find common ground that could lead to a lasting ceasefire deal in Russia’s three-year-long war on Ukraine.

The highly anticipated meeting is the latest in Trump’s numerous, but so far unsuccessful, attempts to end the Ukraine war and keep the promises he made on the campaign trail last year, when he claimed he would end the conflict within 24 hours if elected.

It also marks the first time in a decade that Putin will visit the US, as well as the first-ever visit of a Russian leader to Alaska.

While President Trump has tried to downplay expectations ahead of the meeting, he also warned on Thursday that Russia could face “serious consequences” if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.

Here’s what to know about the Alaska meeting:

When and where are Trump and Putin meeting?

Both leaders will meet at the US military’s Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska.

The time of the meeting is scheduled for about 11:30am Alaska time (19:30 GMT), although this could change.

Accompanying Russian delegation members include: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defence Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov, and Special Presidential Envoy on Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Kirill Dmitriev.

It is not yet clear who will accompany Trump for the meeting from the US side.

Are Zelenskyy and European leaders attending?

No, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend the Alaska meeting, nor will European leaders.

Asked why Zelenskyy was not at the table, Trump chided the Ukrainian president at a White House news briefing on August 11, saying that Zelenskyy had ruled for three years and “nothing happened” in terms of ending the war.

“I would say he could go, but he’s gone to a lot of meetings,” Trump said.

Analyst Neil Melvin of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a London-based think tank, said Europe was essentially an observer in a matter that could determine its fate because it lacked leverage. “​European leaders have been relegated to the margins with the [European Union] seen by Trump and Putin as largely irrelevant,” he said.

Ahead of the meeting, on Wednesday, Trump, alongside US Vice President JD Vance, held a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and other European leaders. Analysts say it was a final attempt on the part of the Europeans to steer the meeting in Ukraine’s favour.

Zelenskyy joined the virtual meeting from Berlin. Other leaders who attended were from Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Finland and Poland. European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen and NATO chief Mark Rutte were also present.

What’s the significance of Alaska as the venue?

Alaska, which is located northwest of the US mainland, is the closest point at which Russia and the US are neighbours. The US state is closer to Russia than it is to the US mainland. On the Russian side, it is closest to the autonomous Chukotka district.

Originally inhabited by Indigenous Americans, the region was first colonised by the old Russian empire in the 18th century. Due to the high costs of maintaining the faraway location, Moscow sold Alaska to the US in 1867 for $7.2m, the equivalent of $162m today. Russian influence still abounds in the region, visible in the Russian Orthodox churches still present, and even in the Russian surnames of some Alaskans.

The Elmendorf-Richardson base, where the meeting will be held, is also significant: It was originally an air force base built in 1940, during World War II. But its role expanded significantly during the Cold War that followed. The US was worried about possible Soviet attacks on Alaska, and thus built monitors and anti-aircraft systems to counter any threats. The airbase was an important part of that mission. The air squadrons based there are still positioned to intercept any Russian aircraft that might seek to enter US airspace.

Still, the US has not clarified why it chose Alaska as the venue for the summit.

What’s on the agenda?

The two leaders will discuss the terms for a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.

On the agenda is how such a deal could look, including possible territorial concessions on either side.

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Its military currently controls about 19 percent of Ukrainian land across Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and small parts of Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk provinces.

Ukraine controlled parts of Russia’s Kursk region from August 2024 but has since lost most of the territory.

What land swaps could Trump and Putin discuss?

Trump, on Monday, suggested in a news briefing that Ukraine and Russia could swap territory in order to reach a land deal.

However, he walked back that suggestion on Tuesday at another briefing as his suggestion proved controversial across Europe. Trump promised to get back some Ukrainian territory.

“Russia occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They occupied prime territory. We’re going to try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine,” he said.

As part of any swap deal, analysts believe that Putin will press for Ukraine to withdraw from the parts of Donetsk that its troops still control. That would give Russia complete control of the Donbas region, which includes Luhansk and Donetsk – Russia already controls almost all of Luhansk – in addition to Crimea and chunks of Kherson, Zaporizhia and other southern regions. It will also want Ukraine to relinquish the tiny part of Kursk in Russia that Kyiv’s forces occupy.

In exchange, Russia might be willing to give up the small areas in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions under its control.

Moscow invaded and illegally occupied Crimea in March 2014. Pro-Russian militias seized parts of the Donbas starting from April 2014, triggering conflict with resisting Ukrainian troops. Much of the region was then taken over by invading Russian forces following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

What are Trump’s expectations for the summit?

President Trump said on Monday that he expects this meeting to be a “feel-type” conversation between him and Putin, one where he understands what the Russian leader wants.

A second meeting, he has said, is likely going to come from it soon and will include Zelenskyy and Putin, with Trump likely hosting it.

However, Trump sounded a more severe tone on Wednesday. He warned that if the Friday meeting ended without Russia agreeing to peace in Ukraine, there would be “very severe consequences” for Russia.

Trump did not specify what US actions might be. He’d earlier threatened economic sanctions on Russia “within 50 days” if Moscow did not end the war. However, the Alaska meeting was announced as the deadline of August 8 arrived, with no significant action from Washington.

Presently, Russia is under significant Western sanctions, including bans on its banks and its crude oil. In late July, the US slammed India with tariffs for buying Russian oil, and this week, US officials have warned of secondary sanctions on that country if Friday’s talks fail.

What has Russia said it wants from the meeting?

Moscow presented a proposal to the US on August 6, last week, stating its requests, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.

Russia’s asks remain similar to its stated goals in June 2024. Moscow says it will stop the war if:

• Kyiv drops its ambitions to join NATO, and if the country disarms significantly.
• If Kyiv pulls back and cedes all of the Donbas in return for Russia halting advances on Kherson and Zaporizhia, and handing back small occupied parts of Sumy and Kharkiv.
• If Western sanctions are relaxed as part of a peace deal.

But Russian officials have since also indicated that they want any movement towards peace to also serve as a launchpad for improved ties with the US. Putin’s delegation for the Alaska summit suggests that Russia might make economic offers – including the promise of investments in the US – to Trump.

What are Ukraine and Europe seeking from the talks?

Zelenkyy has in the past said that Ukraine will not cede territory.

He reiterated that on August 9, in light of Putin’s proposal to Trump, and stated that Ukraine would not “gift land to the occupier” and that it was impossible to do so under Ukrainian law.

Europe, meanwhile, has been nervous about what Trump might agree to. Following the three-way call between Trump, Zelenskyy and European leaders on Wednesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer outlined what the European coalition wanted:

• That the US not agree to any territorial deals without Ukraine being present
• Ukraine needs credible security guarantees as part of any peace deal, that is, a guarantee of non-invasion by Russia.
• Zelenskyy reiterated those calls and added that Ukraine should still be allowed to join NATO if a ceasefire is reached. He also said sanctions should be strengthened if Russia fails to agree to a peace deal on Friday.

What could the outcome be?

Some analysts are hopeful about the prospects of the beginnings of a peace deal emerging from the summit. The big question, they say, is whether Ukraine will agree to a possible deal between the two leaders in Alaska, if its terms are unplatable to Kyiv.

However, others, like Melvin of RUSI, think this meeting is ultimately a play by Russia to stall the US from making good on its sanctions threat, while allowing Moscow to keep advancing militarily in Ukraine.

“Putin believes that he can win [and] is anxious to stall the United States and any further pressure it may seek to put on Russia,” he said. “The most likely outcome of the summit is then that there may be some announcements of steps forward, but the war will continue.”

Sudan’s worst cholera outbreak in years is spreading in a country ravaged by conflict.

Health and aid workers are battling desperately to stop it from escalating and crossing into neighbouring countries.

What’s driving the outbreak – and how serious is it?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Mathilde Vu – Advocacy manager for Sudan at the Norwegian Refugee Council

Simon Mane – Sudan national director at the humanitarian organisation, World Vision International

Mitch Rhyner – Deputy head of mission at Doctors Without Borders, Sudan

OPEC+, which includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, has agreed to another large production hike in September.

That’s despite a warning by the International Energy Agency, the extra barrels could tip the market into oversupply later this year.

US President Donald Trump’s tariffs have targeted Russian crude buyers.

But whether those tariffs are imposed depends on the outcome of trade negotiations with India and China.

And even more so on talks over a peace deal in Ukraine between Washington and Moscow.

Can the US and Europe break China’s grip on rare earths?

Plus, why is China’s Labubu toy so popular?

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Alaska for talks on the war in Ukraine.

But concern is increasing in Kyiv and among its European allies over fears of Ukraine being sidelined.

So, what’s at stake at the Alaska summit for all sides?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests: 

Anatol Lieven – Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Steven Erlanger – Chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe for The New York Times

Alex Titov – Lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast and a specialist in Russian foreign policy

There is a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, after nearly four decades of conflict.

The final stage was brokered by US President Donald Trump in the White House.

Crucial to the deal is a corridor to connect the main part of Azerbaijan with another part of its territory, which is cut off because it is on the other side of Armenia.

But how long will it take before the corridor becomes a reality?

And what will Washington’s growing presence in the South Caucasus mean for the region?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Vasif Huseynov – Head of department at the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)

Jamila Mammadova – Research assistant at the Henry Jackson Society

Vahram Ter-Matevosyan – Political analyst

In April of 2006, I watched a posse of politicians gather at Skid Row’s Midnight Mission to introduce, with great fanfare and unbridled confidence, a 10-year plan to end homelessness in Los Angeles.

That didn’t work out so well.

Twelve years later, in his 2018 State of the City address, Mayor Eric Garcetti made a full-throated vow to quit fooling around and get the job done.

Los Angeles knows how to weather a crisis — or two or three. Angelenos are tapping into that resilience, striving to build a city for everyone.

“We are here to end homelessness,” he said.

Mission not accomplished.

We have a habit of setting lofty goals and making grand promises in Los Angeles and in California.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Better to have politicians and experts who study the pressing issues of the day and go out on a limb rather than shrug their shoulders.

“It’s hard to do anything if you don’t have a vision,” said Jessica Bremner, a Cal State L.A. urban geography professor. Transit, housing and infrastructure needs won’t materialize without that vision, she added. “Nothing will move.”

Agreed. And all of us, not just politicians, want to believe there’s a better version of our community — a brighter future.

But there is a big difference between a vision and a hallucination, and we’ve had some of both in recent years.

Here’s a sampling:

A mobile phone user looks at an earthquake warning application. After the Northridge quake, the state passed a law requiring seismic upgrades of hospitals by 2030. As of 2023, nearly two-thirds had yet to complete the required improvements.

(Richard Vogel / Associated Press)

In 2022, California set a goal of eliminating the sale of gas-powered vehicles after 2035 — which would dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions — and reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the state did more than set a goal. It passed a law requiring hospitals to upgrade seismic safety by 2030.

Los Angeles, under Garcetti, championed Vision Zero in 2015. The goal? Eliminate traffic deaths by 2025. Not reduce, but eliminate.

Steve Lopez

Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.

In 2020, the city embraced SmartLA 2028, a plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and gas-powered vehicles and build “a data-driven connected city, which addresses the digital divide and brings fresh ideas, including tele-health, clean tech and a switch to mass transit.”

In 2021, the California Master Plan for Aging set “five bold goals” to increase affordable housing and improve health, caregiving and economic security for older adults and those with disabilities by 2030.

In anticipation of L.A.’s hosting of the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, Metro introduced its “Twenty-eight by ‘28” initiative in 2018, outlining more than two dozen transit objectives.

The DTLA 2040 plan, adopted by the city in 2023, would add 70,000 housing units and 55,000 jobs over the next 15 years.

So how’s it all going?

The good news: There’s been a lot of progress.

The bad news: Where to begin?

Surely you’ll fall over backward when I tell you that funding shortages, politics, evolving priorities, lack of coordination, haphazard and disjointed planning, and less than stellar leadership have stymied progress on many fronts.

On homelessness, thousands have been housed and helped thanks to big initiatives and voter-approved resources. But as an observer once described it, we’ve been managing rather than solving the crisis and essentially bailing a leaky boat with a teaspoon. And now the agency at the helm is in disarray.

People experiencing homelessness pack their tents and belongings during the cleanup of an encampment on Wilshire Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

On climate change, California deserves a big pat on the back for at least acknowledging the crisis and responding with big ideas. But the Trump administration, which is likely to hold steady up to and beyond the point at which Mar-a-Lago is underwater, has all but declared war on the Golden State’s good intentions, eliminating funding for key projects and challenging the state’s authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Trump, Congress and fossil fuel companies in opposing the state’s ambitions. Meanwhile, a grim analysis last year, which can’t be blamed on Trump, said the state would have to triple the pace of progress to reach its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target.

As for the law requiring seismic upgrades of hospitals by 2030, as of 2023, nearly two-thirds had yet to complete the required improvements and many had asked for amendments and extensions.

L.A.’s Vision Zero, meanwhile, which promised the redesign of high-accident locations and multiple other safety upgrades for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, has been a singular embarrassment.

Rather than an elimination of traffic deaths, the number has surged, and an audit released earlier this year serves as an indictment of local leadership. It cited lack of accountability along with “conflicts of personality, lack of total buy-in for implementation, disagreements over how the program should be administered.”

“Incredibly disappointing,” said Michael Manville, a UCLA professor of urban planning. “The city remains incredibly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Manville didn’t have very high grades, either, for Metro’s 28×28 foray.

“It’s a joke at this point,” he said, although even though he noted that some progress is undeniable, citing in particular the expected completion of the Purple Line extension to the Westside in time for the Olympics.

But many of the 28 original projects won’t make the deadline, and oh, by the way, there’s no money at the moment to pay for the promised fleet of 2,700 buses for what Mayor Karen Bass has called the transit-first, “no-car” Olympics.

One morning in June, I stood on Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima with L.A. City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez. She was looking to the north, in the direction of an empty promise.

“This is the home of the future San Fernando Valley Light Rail,” Rodriguez said. “It was supposed to be one of the 28 by 28, and we’re now looking at probably 2031 to 2032 for its completion … in a community that has a majority dependence … on public transit.”

We also visited the site of a proposed Sylmar fire station for which there was a groundbreaking ceremony about two decades ago. Rodriguez said with the adjacent hills turning brown as fire season approaches, Sylmar is long overdue for the station, but the city is hobbled by a massive budget deficit.

“Now I’ve just got to get the money to build it,” Rodriguez said.

An image from video shows the aftermath of a traffic collision involving three vehicles on the southbound lanes of the 405 Freeway near Wilshire Boulevard. Former Mayor Eric Garcetti championed Vision Zero in 2015. The goal? Eliminate traffic deaths by 2025.

(KTLA)

Sometimes it seems as if the big goals are designed to redirect our attention from the failures of daily governance. Sure, there’s a 10-year wait to get your ruptured sidewalk fixed, but flying taxis are in the works for the Olympics.

And one convenient feature of long-term goals is that when 2035 or 2045 rolls around, few may remember who made the promises, or even recall what was promised.

In Professor Bremner’s vision of a rosier L.A. future, there would be more buses and trains on the lines that serve the Cal State L.A. transit station. She told me she talks to her students about the relationship between climate change and the car culture, and then watches them hustle after night classes to catch a bus that runs on 30-minute intervals or a train that rolls in once an hour.

As for the other big promises I mentioned, SmartLA 2028 lays out dozens of laudable but perhaps overly ambitious goals — “Los Angeles residents will experience an improved quality of life by leveraging technology to meet urban challenges. No longer the ‘car capital of the world’, residents will choose how they wish to get around LA, using a single, digital payment platform, with choices like renovated Metro rail and bus systems or micro transit choices, such as on-demand LANow shuttles or dockless bicycles.” But in the 50-page strategy document, the word “challenges” is mentioned quite a bit, and I worry that this particular reference could be the kiss of death:

“City of Los Angeles departments have varying funding sources, missions, and directives, which can inhibit unified, citywide Smart City technology initiatives.”

It’s a little too soon to know whether the DTLA 2040 goals will rank as vision or hallucination, but downtown is the logical place for high-density residential development and construction cranes are already on the job. As for the Master Plan for Aging, there’s been progress but also uncertainty about steady funding streams, particularly given current state budget miseries, and there’s no guarantee the plan will be prioritized by future governors.

“Goals are critical,” said Mark Gold, director of water scarcity solutions at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But they need to be followed up with implementation plans, with budgets, funding mechanisms, milestones and metrics.”

Gold recalls Garcetti’s promise in 2019 that all of L.A.’s wastewater would be recycled by 2035.

“That is nowhere close,” said Gold, but two other goals might be within reach. One is to have 70% of L.A.’s water locally sourced by 2035, the other is for 80% of county water to be local by 2045, using increased stormwater capture, recycled wastewater, groundwater remediation and conservation.

When he ran Heal the Bay, Gold implemented an annual report card for ocean water quality at various beaches. Maybe we ought to use the same system every time a politician takes a bow for introducing a bold, far-reaching goal.

Without the measuring stick, Gold said, “you end up looking back and saying, ‘remember when we were going to do this and that and it never happened?’ You have to continuously revisit and grade yourself on how you’re doing.”

Plans for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics are linked to a fleet of buses to transport people to and from venues like SoFi Stadium to avoid a traffic meltdown. The plan includes a $2-billion ask of the Trump administration to lease 2,700 buses to join Metro’s fleet of about 2,400.

(Deborah Netburn / Los Angeles Times)

While it’s true, Manville said, that “L.A. seems to be better at kicking off grand plans than seeing them through, that’s not unique to Los Angeles.”

He cited “Abundance” as one of several recent books making the case that “lots of cities in blue states can’t seem to get out of their own way.”

The failures of virtuous Democrats are indeed on full display in California and beyond. But the other side of the aisle is not without its own sins, beginning with cult-like denial of climate change and, speaking of empty promises, undying devotion to a man who said he would end the war in Ukraine before he took office and bring down grocery prices on Day One.

Would you rather live in a state crazy enough to still think it can build a bullet train and outlaw carbon, or in one of the many hurricane-battered states crazy enough to think this is a swell time to get rid of FEMA?

If you’re reaching for the stars, making it to the moon isn’t a bad start.

[email protected]

New Delhi, India — When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, many Indian analysts celebrated, arguing that his bonhomie with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would shield the country from the chaos that the United States president could unleash.

The two leaders had effectively campaigned for each other previously, attending joint rallies. They have repeatedly described each other as friends, and in February, Modi became among the first world leaders to visit Trump in the White House.

But six months later, a sobering reality has hit New Delhi, with Trump punishing it with a 25 percent tariff on imports and near-daily threats to increase those levies further because of India’s oil purchases from Russia, as he tries to force Moscow into accepting a ceasefire in its war on Ukraine.

An India-US trade deal remains elusive, and bilateral relations are on a slippery slope, according to some experts. “US-India relations are at the lowest point in decades,” Biswajit Dhar, a trade economist who has worked on several Indian trade deals, told Al Jazeera. Dozens of other countries, including neighbours India has tense ties with, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, are facing lower tariffs.

Addressing a public rally on Saturday, Modi took a defiant stance against Trump’s tariff assaults. “The world economy is going through many apprehensions. There is an atmosphere of instability,” Modi said.

“Now, whatever we buy, there should be only one scale: we will buy those things which have been made by the sweat of an Indian,” he added.

Modi’s comments come as Indian officials reportedly reject stopping the buying of Russian crude.

Trump has blamed India’s buying of Russian oil for helping finance Moscow’s war on Ukraine. “They [Indians] don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,”  Trump said Monday. “Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.”

So, how did we get here? What are the growing points of discord between India and the US? And could India give up on Russian oil to save its relationship with the US?

What are the friction points in US-India relations?

Modi and Trump might speak highly of each other, but there is a growing number of areas where India and the US are at odds, ranging from trade agreements to strategic alignment.

No trade deal

Trade has long been a sticking point in US-India relations, even as strategic and defence ties have deepened. The US has consistently pushed for greater market access, lower tariffs and stronger protections, especially for its tech, pharmaceutical and agricultural exports. India, on the other hand, has resisted what it sees as disproportionate pressure to open up its economy in ways that may harm its domestic industries and small farmers.

Yet, before Trump, the two countries managed this economic relationship, despite its imbalance: India sold twice as much to the US as the US sold to India. The US wanted access to India’s growing markets, and India needed to export to the US, so keeping ties afloat was important to both.

After Trump first announced tariffs on almost all trading partners on April 1, Indian and US officials began talks to stitch together a trade deal. But disagreements over e-commerce regulation, digital data flows and price controls on medical devices have reportedly stalled progress.

Indian officials were frantically chasing the August 1 deadline set by Trump to avoid tariffs. But despite occasional breakthroughs, like India cutting tariffs on some US goods, the two countries have not yet concluded a full bilateral trade deal.

With negotiations still under way, New Delhi now faces 25 percent tariffs on its exports to the US, and Trump has threatened unspecified additional penalties tied to India’s energy and arms purchases from Russia.

“This is a pressure tactic by Trump,” said Anil Trigunayat, a former Indian diplomat who has served as India’s trade commissioner in New York. “Unlike others, India has not given in to what the Americans want because we have to protect our MSMEs and agriculture,” he added, using the acronym for micro, small, and medium enterprises.

Almost half of India’s population depends on agriculture for its livelihood, making the issue politically sensitive for every Indian government.

“Everybody is playing hardball on both sides, and it’s necessary to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution,” he told Al Jazeera.

India’s close ties with Russia

As Trump’s frustrations with Russia mount over stalled peace talks to end the war in Ukraine, the US president has been looking for more ways to corner Moscow. India’s longstanding relationship with Russia has emerged as a key target for Washington.

While the US views India as a key partner in countering China’s rise in the Asia Pacific, it has grown increasingly uneasy with New Delhi’s continued defence and energy ties with Moscow, analysts say.

At a time when the West has shunned Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court related to the war in Ukraine, Modi visited Russia twice last year. In July 2024, Putin conferred upon Modi the Order of St Andrew the Apostle the First‑Called, Russia’s highest civilian honour.

Russia remains one of India’s largest arms suppliers, and their cooperation spans critical technologies, including missile systems and nuclear reactors. And after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India ramped up imports of discounted Russian crude oil.

Kashmir ceasefire

After an attack by gunmen in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pahalgam resort town on April 22, in which 26 civilians were killed, India and Pakistan engaged in their most expansive military conflict in decades.

As the South Asian nuclear-armed rivals traded missile and drone attacks in May, Trump said he intervened and told both countries to agree to a ceasefire, or there would be no trade.

“Fellas, come on. Let’s make a deal. Let’s do some trading. Let’s not trade nuclear missiles. Let’s trade the things that you make so beautifully,” Trump said a few days later in Riyadh.

“I used trade to a large extent to do [the ceasefire]. And it all stopped,” he added.

In India, which has long held the position that all disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally, with no third-party mediation, Trump’s claim that he engineered the May 10 ceasefire that stopped the fighting has sparked criticism of Modi from the opposition.

Modi’s government has insisted that the truce was brought about bilaterally, that Modi did not speak to Trump during the conflict, and that – contrary to the US president’s claims – trade was never discussed as a factor in negotiating the ceasefire. But Trump has doubled down on his claim, mentioning more than 30 times that he brokered peace.

Growing US-Pakistan ties

After the ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May, Trump hosted Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, at the White House. Never before had a US president hosted a Pakistani military boss who was not also the head of state.

That meeting underscored a growing warmth between Washington and Islamabad after years of tense ties, with US military officials crediting Pakistan with helping them capture wanted “terrorists”.

The government of Pakistan also officially endorsed Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for “recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis”.

A day after meeting Munir, Trump called Modi a “fantastic man”, but added that Munir was “extremely influential” in bringing about the ceasefire.

“I love Pakistan,” Trump said, and repeated: “I stopped the war between Pakistan and India.”

As Trump targeted India in his latest tariff assault, he took to his Truth Social platform to reveal that he had concluded a deal with Pakistan, in which they would work together on developing oil reserves. “Who knows, maybe they’ll be selling Oil to India some day!” he wrote.

Later, the US imposed a 19 percent tariff on imports from Pakistan, which Islamabad hailed as “balanced and forward-looking”.

Big Tech hiring, deportation

Days before Modi visited Trump in February, visuals emerged of Indian citizens in the US, shackled in chains, parading towards a US military aircraft, prompting anger in India over the treatment of its nationals.

Returnees, immigrants without documents to stay in the US, described being chained throughout the flight to India, unable to move for nearly 40 hours. Like trade, the issue of deportation has been at the centre of Trump’s re-election campaign.

And it is not just undocumented migrants.

After assuming the presidency, Trump’s administration has also come under pressure from the president’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) base to crack down on H1B work visas, nearly 72 percent of which go to Indians.

Last month, speaking at an artificial intelligence summit in Washington, DC, Trump singled out tech giants like Google, Microsoft and Apple for hiring workers from India. Trump declared, “The days of hiring workers in India are over”, and urged companies to prioritise jobs for Americans and disconnect from outsourcing models tied to India and China.

What’s the latest spark in US-India tensions?

Russia’s war on Ukraine has emerged as the latest trigger, as Trump tried to push Putin into accepting a ceasefire.

On Monday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that “India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits”.

Earlier, Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of the US president’s most influential aides, linked India’s buying of Russian crude to financing Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

“What [Trump] said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia,” said Miller.

“People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That’s an astonishing fact,” Miller told Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.

India imports nearly 2 million barrels of crude oil per day from Russia, making it the second-largest purchaser of Russian oil after China. Russia also tops the list of India’s arms suppliers.

How has India reacted to Trump?

On Monday, India’s Ministry of External Affairs responded sharply, calling the US’s targeting of New Delhi over the buying of Russian oil “unjustified and unreasonable”.

It accused the West of double standards, pointing out how Europe traded more with Russia in 2024 than India did, and how the US continues to import chemicals and fertilisers from Russia.

It also said that the US has “actively encouraged” it to buy Russian oil, so that global crude prices would stay under control while the West could reduce its dependence on Russian energy.

“India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,” the statement concluded.

Will India stop buying Russian oil to please Trump?

That is very unlikely, experts say.

India has historically — since independence from Britain in 1947 — cherished its strategic autonomy, including during the Cold War, when it stayed non-aligned. Since the end of the Cold War, it has deepened strategic and military ties with the US while maintaining its traditional friendship with Russia.

“Trump is trying to wean India off its strategic autonomy policy by going after its ties with Russia and membership in BRICS,” Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera, referring to the Trump’s threats of higher tariffs against members of the bloc that includes several leading nations of the Global South.

“But Delhi is not about to jettison this policy in the face of Trump’s pressure. On the contrary, I expect it to double down.”

Late on Tuesday, India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval landed in Moscow. Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar is expected to visit Russia later this month. And New Delhi has confirmed that Putin will be visiting India later this year, for the first time since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

In recent weeks, India has also indicated that it is open to reviving a trilateral grouping including Russia and China, the West’s two big rivals.

“Can the US or Europe give up their strategic autonomy?” asked Jayati Ghosh, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “India has more people than both of them put together. It is absurd to even think that India can give up that,” she told Al Jazeera.

What does this mean for future of US-India relationship?

Echoing Dhar, the economist, Kugelman said that US-India relations have “sunk to their lowest level during the last two decades of strategic partnership”, which began taking shape in the early years of the 21st century.

Non-alignment with foreign governments “remains a critical component of India’s foreign policy”, said Kugelman, adding that he expects that to continue.

And because “India maintained this balance after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump is penalising [New Delhi] for trying to maintain the balance [between US and Russia],” he said. “[That’s] something that the Biden administration never did,” he added, referring to the previous administration of US President Joe Biden.

Trigunayat, the former diplomat, said that “strategic autonomy for India is more important now than ever. India, with the world’s largest population, has its own approach to strategic autonomy that’s in the DNA of Indian foreign policy.”

In the longer run, Kugelman said that New Delhi will hope that Trump’s ire will eventually blow over – a likely case if Russia agrees to stop fighting in Ukraine.

“In that sense, India may look to redouble efforts to press Putin to end the war,” said Kugelman, “because for now, Trump appears to be taking out his frustration with Putin on India”.