Russia hits Ukraine using Oreshnik hypersonic missile in new strike

May 25, 2026

Russia strikes Ukraine with Oreshnik hypersonic missile

Kyiv woke to an hours-long onslaught as Russia unleashed hundreds of drones and missiles in one of the capital’s most intense bombardments since the war began, including the launch of an Oreshnik hypersonic missile near the city.

Ukrainian officials said the overnight barrage killed two people in Kyiv and two more in the surrounding area, while nearly 100 were wounded.

Authorities reported damage to dozens of residential buildings and several schools, with many of the impacts concentrated in central Kyiv.

“It’s important that this does not remain without consequences for Russia,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on the Telegram messaging app.

He called on Ukraine’s partners to respond.

“Decisions are needed – from the United States, from Europe and others,” he said.

Officials also recorded strikes elsewhere in the country and said two people were killed in the southern region of Kherson.

Firefighters extinguish a fire in an apartment building partially destroyed by a Russian strike in Kyiv

European leaders denounced the attack on Kyiv, with Britain and Germany calling the use of the Oreshnik—an intermediate range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads—an “escalation”.

Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said Moscow was resorting to “a political scare tactic and reckless nuclear-brinkmanship”.

Chornobyl museum hit in attack

The strikes caused minor damage to Ukraine’s cabinet building and the Foreign Ministry, officials said.

Kyiv’s national art museum and the philharmonic ‌hall, both located in the city’s core, were badly ⁠damaged, according to officials, who added that numerous other historic buildings in the centre were also affected.

“This is a war against our culture, memory, and identity,” said Kyrylo Budanov, Mr Zelensky’s top aide.

“For centuries, Moscow has tried to destroy everything that makes us Ukrainian,” he added.

One strike levelled a newly opened museum dedicated to the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear disaster, drawing a furious response from Mr Zelensky during a visit to the site.

Nearby, at a city-centre cafe that had marked its opening just yesterday, workers swept up shattered glass and debris.

Even with the damage, the cafe kept serving customers—some of whom said they came specifically to show solidarity.

“Once ‌the emotions die down a bit, we’ll think about whether to restore everything … or whether to work at all,” said Yevhenii Prusak, the cafe’s co-owner.

It was only the third reported use of the Oreshnik missile against Ukraine since the war began with ⁠Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

The Oreshnik is assessed to have a range of several thousand kilometres.

The previous two attacks hit major cities, but Mr Zelensky said this strike landed in Bila ‌Tserkva, a city of 200,000 people about 64 km from the outskirts of Kyiv.

Analysis of Reuters footage suggests the missile’s warhead ⁠split into 36 submunitions, according ‌to Rollo Collins, an investigator at the Centre for Information Resilience, an open-source investigation organisation.

Overall, Ukraine’s air force said, Russia fired 90 missiles and launched 600 drones.

A damaged classroom at the Starobilsk College of Luhansk Pedagogical University

Mr Zelensky said Russia also aimed at water-supply facilities, arguing Moscow was seeking to damage infrastructure ahead of higher summer demand.

Russia said it used Oreshnik, Iskander, Kinzhal and Zircon missiles in retaliation for Ukrainian strikes on civilian targets inside Russia.

Ukraine says ⁠it does not target civilians.

Russia’s Defence Ministry said the attacks hit Ukrainian military command facilities, including sites used by land forces and military intelligence, as well as air bases and military-industrial locations.

Russia also denies targeting civilians, ⁠though thousands have been killed in bombardments of Ukrainian cities during the war.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

‘It was terrifying’

The barrage hit Lukyanivka, a district north of Kyiv’s city centre that is home to a missile plant, particularly hard.

Apartment blocks and businesses in the area have repeatedly been damaged by Russian strikes over the course of the war, and this time a shopping centre and nearby market were left gutted by fire.

Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least two people were killed in the capital and another 81 were wounded.

Roughly 30 buildings across Kyiv were damaged or destroyed, Mr Zelensky said.

As explosions echoed overnight, many residents headed underground to metro stations for shelter.

Nataliia Zvarych, 62, said she ran to her local station as the blasts began shaking the city.

“It was terrifying, scary,” she said.

Kyiv has recently broadened its drone capabilities and intensified strikes on undisputed Russian territory, including residential areas and oil export infrastructure.

US-led efforts to negotiate an end to more than four years of war have slowed in recent months, with Washington’s focus pulled towards its conflict in the Middle East.

Analysis: Deep strikes – Ukraine and Russia’s drone warfare escalates

Long-range strikes: Ukraine and Russia’s drone warfare intensifies

hanad

May 24, 2026

Deep strikes - Ukraine and Russia drone warfare escalates — Members of the Lava Unmanned Systems Regiment assemble a drone as they wait for a combat mission in the Kharkiv region, Ukraine

A War Redrawn in the Sky: How Drones Have Become the New Frontline

There is a strange intimacy to modern war: the hiss of a propeller over a village, the blue flicker of a laptop screen guiding a winged metal bird toward a distant refinery. Four years after the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion, the conflict in Ukraine has been reframed not simply by tanks and artillery but by an industry of small, hungry machines. Every week now brings new reports of strikes and counterstrikes, of towns burned, of energy pipelines interrupted—and of entire livelihoods retooled to make the devices that decide life and death.

Starobilsk, Kyiv and the Human Cost

Last Friday, officials in Moscow-controlled Luhansk said a Ukrainian drone strike hit a college dormitory in Starobilsk, killing at least 18 people. That claim is raw in its details and rawer still in its human echoes: mothers waking to find beds empty, students who had once studied calculus and literature buried under rubble.

On the other side of the ledger, Kyiv still bears fresh scars. A ballistic missile strike on an apartment block in the capital a week earlier left 24 dead, including three children—an image that will not slide easily from the national memory.

These incidents are not isolated. In a single week, Russia reportedly launched more than 4,000 drones and missiles at Ukraine, and authorities recorded 52 civilian deaths. Ukraine answered with a wave of its own: more than 600 drone strikes across 14 regions in a retaliatory campaign that included forays into the Moscow region. Russian officials reported at least four fatalities from those strikes. “Our response was entirely justified,” President Volodymyr Zelensky told the nation—a line that articulates the bitter arithmetic of modern conflict: every strike is framed as either retaliation, prevention or both.

The Kill Zone and the Changing Geometry of Battle

Once, the frontline was a line. Now it is a volume of air and vulnerabilities. Military planners talk about the “kill zone”—a lateral ribbon roughly 20 kilometres deep on either side of the frontline where drones, both small and large, can starve movement, strike supply convoys and slaughter anything that moves.

But that ribbon is stretching. Recent months have seen the creeping arrival of fibre-optic tethered drones and long-range strike platforms that extend the danger well beyond the immediate front. Ukrainian authorities say their drones have struck 11 oil refineries this month alone, some sites as far as 800 kilometres from the border. In April, drones reportedly reached the Urals—1,500 to 1,700 kilometres away—hitting storage and refining infrastructure in a way that disrupts not only operations but also revenue streams.

Why Oil Matters

Disrupting refineries is not a luxury; it’s strategy. Ukraine has repeatedly targeted the same sites in an effort to degrade Russia’s export capacity. President Zelensky estimated this week that Russia’s oil refining operations have contracted by roughly 10% in recent months. Even if the exact long-term impact is hard to quantify, the immediate consequences are tangible: halted shifts, charred storage tanks, and the expensive ledger of repairs for state energy firms.

From Florists to Engineers: The Domestic Drone Revolution

There’s a peculiar image that recurs on the Ukrainian front: people who once ran cafés, flower shops and hardware stores now hunched over benches assembling first-person-view (FPV) drones. Kseniia Kalmus, founder of KLYN—a Kyiv-based charity workshop—says she used to arrange roses and peonies in a cosy corner of the city. When war came, she rearranged her life around circuit boards and propellers.

“We went from bouquets to batteries,” Kalmus told me. “A drone is just a bouquet of parts until someone teaches it to fly and to find a target. We teach, we fix, we learn fast.” Her team assembles low-cost FPVs—many components Ukrainian-made—for frontline units. These small devices can cost less than €1,000 apiece, while heavier strike models like the Liutyi carry larger charges and heftier price tags: roughly $200,000 per unit, according to past industry reporting.

That price discrepancy is important. Cheap FPVs swarm in the kill zone, jittering across hedgerows and city blocks. Larger fixed-wing drones—some designed by Antonov and built at state-owned plants—are the long-range predators, crossing hundreds or even thousands of kilometres to find refineries, depots and tanker corridors.

The Tactics Are the Weapon

“This is a race of tactics,” said Fedir Serdiuk, a co-founder of Mowa Defense, a Ukrainian firm specializing in drone warfare. He is thirty, impatient and insistent that technology follows idea. “You can buy a drone, but if you don’t know how to hide it, how to feed it targets, how to combine it with surveillance, it does nothing.”

Ukraine’s forces have integrated private innovation into military doctrine in a way that few nations have. Civilian messaging systems, streaming platforms and open-source situational awareness tools are married to military intelligence and strike planning—a level of interoperability that Serdiuk calls “the most streamed, most interconnected war in human history.” The Ministry of Defence reported in January that drones had caused more than 80% of Russian casualties last year—an indication of how decisive unmanned systems have become.

Tools of the Trade

Liutyi: Heavy, fixed-wing kamikaze drones weighing ~250 kg with up to 50 kg payloads.
FP-1 and Bars: Medium-range strike drones used in incursions towards the Moscow region.
FPVs: Small, agile drones built for reconnaissance and swarm attacks; cheap and quickly produced.
Fibre-optic tethered systems: Extending control range and endurance over contested skies.

Voices from the Ground

“We went to sleep with the sound of fireworks and woke to the sound of ambulances,” said Olena, a teacher in Starobilsk who helped pull students from a collapsed dormitory. “You learn to run differently. You learn to count seats at the table before you fill them.”

In Yaroslavl, a refinery worker who asked not to be named described the chill of uncertainty: “We used to say we were fighting in the east, not here. Now the factory is a map of holes and contracts. I don’t know how long we will rebuild.” His words underscore a broader truth: energy sabotage is not only about barrels and profit margins; it’s about factories that feed towns, pensions that pay out, and the geopolitical leverage that comes with export routes.

What This Means for the World

When industrial centres far from battlefields become targets, the reverberations are global. Energy markets react, insurers reassess risk, and supply chains reroute. But perhaps the most consequential shift is the normalization of unmanned warfare: when private companies can design lethal drones in a weekend and when volunteers in a workshop can stitch together AI-assisted targeting, the line between civilian industry and military capability blurs.

So we must ask: how do we regulate a technology that can be manufactured in a garage and delivered across borders with the click of a mouse? Can diplomatic efforts keep pace with the speed of tactical innovation? And what will a world look like where the calculus of conflict is measured not in divisions and sorties but in production lines and streaming feeds?

Looking Ahead

President Zelensky has already greenlit long-range plans for June, signalling that Ukraine will continue to press deep strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. Moscow’s daily campaigns against Ukrainian cities and towns show no sign of abating—particularly while multilateral peace efforts remain stalled. What feels certain is that the next phase of this war will be fought as much in factories, on Discord channels and in crowdfunding pages as on the muddy fields of the east.

For readers around the world: watch the skies differently. A drone overhead in this conflict can mean a convoy destroyed, a heartbeat stopped, or a refinery set alight. As technology democratizes violence, the moral and strategic responsibilities of governments, corporations and citizens grow heavier. How will you weigh them?

Suspect shot dead after opening fire near the White House

hanad

May 24, 2026

Gunman killed after opening fire near White House — Secret Service agents are seen after a lockdown was lifted at the White House

Gunfire on Pennsylvania Avenue: A Night That Reminded Washington How Fragile the Ordinary Can Be

The air over downtown Washington had the thin, surreal sheen of an ordinary evening — a warm wind, the distant murmur of traffic, and the soft click of cameras from tourists on a late spring stroll. Then shots shattered that quiet. Within seconds, the familiar tableau of the White House lawn and the press pens became the scene of a tense, chaotic scramble that left one gunman dead, a bystander wounded, and the city once again on edge.

It was 17th Street at Pennsylvania Avenue — the corner where iconic photographs are taken and where visitors pause to look at the gates and the guard towers — that became a battlefield, briefly and terrifyingly. According to the Secret Service, an individual approached a security checkpoint and began firing at officers. Secret Service police returned fire; the suspect was struck, taken to a nearby hospital, and later pronounced dead. A bystander was also hit during the exchange and is reportedly being treated, though officials have not released the extent of their injuries.

Moments of terror, relived by those who were there

“It sounded like dozens of gunshots,” said Selina Wang, an ABC News reporter, who was livestreaming from the north lawn when the first round of fire erupted. “We were told to sprint to the press briefing room.” A video clip she shared shows journalists and staff ducking, calling to one another, and running — a small, panicked exodus from a place meant to be the eye of calm in American governance.

“I was taping a social piece when everything went black with noise,” said a visitor from California who asked not to be named. “You don’t expect to be part of a breaking-news video where you are the subject.” A nearby vendor who sells postcards and presidential memorabilia added, “We see tourists every day. For a second, they all looked like they were from somewhere else — distant, scared, like they’d been wrenched out of a movie.”

Official responses and a grim backstory

The White House was not empty at the time. President Donald Trump, who is reported to have been at the residence engaged in talks on foreign policy, later posted on Truth Social that the shooter had “a violent history and a possible obsession with our country’s most cherished structure,” and thanked the “swift and professional action” of the Secret Service. The agency says a “stay-away order” had previously been issued to the suspect — a detail that raises questions about how such restrictions are enforced and when they fall short.

“Any time a threat comes this close to the President and to this building, it is a reminder that the work of protection is never finished,” said a senior Secret Service official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Our officers train constantly for exactly these split seconds. Their actions prevented what could have been a far worse outcome.” The FBI announced it is assisting the Secret Service as part of a broader investigation.

How Washington handles the unthinkable

The scene around the White House was temporarily saturated with emergency vehicles and police tape, officers directing pedestrians away from the affected blocks. For residents and visitors alike, the area — normally a place of casual ritual, where joggers wind around the Ellipse and tourists cluster for photos under the cherry trees — felt foreign. That dissonance is part of what makes incidents like this so unnerving.

Security experts note the challenge here: the White House sits in a public-facing environment by design. “The symbolic proximity of the president to the people is part of American democracy,” said Dr. Elena Morales, a homeland security analyst at Georgetown University. “But that openness requires constant, adaptable defense. Checkpoints, stay-away orders, perimeter surveillance — all of these are layers. Sometimes a single determined individual finds a weak spot in the weave.”

Such incidents are not isolated in American history. From small-scale breaches to brazen attempts to reach the residence, the White House and its protective bubble have faced threats that vary wildly in method and motive. Whatever the motive in this case, officials are already parsing the past — trying to understand how a person with a reported fixation managed to get close enough to discharge a weapon in such a high-profile location.

Where this fits in a broader conversation

Beyond the immediate facts — who was injured, who responded, how the prosecutors will proceed — the shooting forces a larger civic reckoning. What does it mean when monuments and centers of power become objects of obsession? How do a city’s security protocols balance the need for openness with the imperative of safety? And at a societal level, what tools do we have to identify and intervene when someone begins to fixate on violence toward public spaces?

“We need to talk not only about policing, but about prevention,” said Dr. Thomas Ingle, a psychologist who studies extremist behavior. “Obsession and violent ideation usually have precursors: social isolation, untreated mental illness, a pattern of escalating threats. The court of public safety needs better tools for early intervention.”

Voices from the neighborhood

A woman who runs a small café two blocks from the White House wiped her hands on her apron and said, “We’ve had protests and lots of visitors, but this felt different. You could tell people were thinking — ‘Why here? Why us?’ People come to this neighborhood because it feels like the heart of the country. When that gets punctured, it leaves a bruise.”

Another local, a longtime postal worker, shrugged and said with a tired smile, “We keep doing our jobs. Mail still needs to go out. But you notice more patrol cars now. You see it in the kids too: they asked their teacher why planes didn’t land. You have to explain to children that sometimes the grown-up world is messy and scary. It’s not fair, but it is true.”

Questions to carry forward

As investigators gather shell casings, analyze camera feeds, and interview witnesses, certain questions will persist. How did existing “stay-away” measures fail to stop this approach to a high-security checkpoint? How can law enforcement better coordinate with mental health and community resources to identify potential threats before they reach a gate? And perhaps most quietly, how do we, as a public, accept the paradox of living in a free society that nonetheless requires strict protective measures for its highest officials?

These are not questions for one agency alone. They sit at the intersection of public safety, mental health, civil liberties, and civic design. They will be debated in briefings and on cable television, in the quiet offices of local NGOs and in the louder forums of social media. But beneath those debates are human stories: the bystander now in recovery, the Secret Service officers who will replay their responses, the tourists who will tell an unsettling tale for years to come.

After the sirens

By midnight the cordons had been partially lifted, streetlights flickered over the barricades, and Washington returned to the slow rhythm of a capital city trying to hold its balance. A few stragglers lingered at the edge of the tape, trading theories like baseball cards. Someone handed out extra hotdogs, a small, defiant gesture of normalcy. “You can’t live in fear,” said the café owner, handing a cup of coffee to a passerby. “But you also can’t pretend the fear isn’t real.”

Do we want to live in a world where the places that define us can be attacked without warning? How much freedom will we cede to feel safe? These are heavy questions, and tonight, for a little while, they were not abstract. They were the sound of gunfire on Pennsylvania Avenue, the shuffle of reporters into a briefing room, and the quiet hum of a city that keeps going — even when the ground trembles.

Location: 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, near the North Lawn.
Involved: Secret Service returned fire; suspect transported to hospital and later died; one bystander shot and hospitalized.
Ongoing: Secret Service investigation with FBI assistance; stay-away order previously issued to the suspect.

As the investigation continues, expect facts to emerge and hypotheses to be tested. In the meantime, take a moment to look at the familiar places you take for granted. What would it mean to defend them, and at what cost? How do we reconcile the openness that defines democratic life with the vigilance required to protect it? Tonight, Washington offered a stark reminder that that balance is never finished work.

Makerfield by-election campaign kicks into high gear as contenders clash

hanad

May 24, 2026

Battle of the Makerfield bye-election begins in earnest — A child picks up a campaign placard at the launch of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham's campaign

Waterloo on the doorstep: Why a little bye-election in Makerfield suddenly feels like a continental showdown

On a raw morning in a former mining town, the anniversary of a battle that once decided Europe’s fate has been repurposed. June 18 — the day the guns fell silent at Waterloo in 1815 — now doubles as the polling day for the Makerfield bye-election. The symbolism is deliciously British and slightly absurd: a 211-year-old victory remembered as a backdrop to a local contest that might shift the direction of national policy.

But anyone who thinks this is merely a trivia-laden stunt is misreading the stakes. This is not just another candidate trying to win a seat. It is the carefully plotted opening move in a game of thrones inside the Labour Party, and a skirmish in Britain’s still-unfinished argument with the European Union.

The man, the plan, the mission

Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester and a familiar face in these parts, has come home to stand for Parliament not out of habit but out of necessity. The mayoralty is safe; the Labour leadership is not. Winning Makerfield is his ticket into Westminster — and his only practical path to a ballot to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the party leadership.

“This isn’t about me,” Burnham told a crowd gathered on a gravel patch at his campaign launch, wind nipping at the fluttering “For Us” banners. “It’s about this place. It’s about the shops on the high street, the kids who can’t afford a home, the people who’ve been ignored for decades.” He promised a “change bye-election” — not as a slogan, he said, but as a mission statement.

There’s a logic to it. Burnham’s political roots run in this soil; he used to represent Leigh and remains comfortably known to many voters here. In mayoral ballots he performed strongly across the wards that now form Makerfield. But his hometown advantage collides with a very different local mood: the constituency voted strongly for Brexit — by roughly 2:1 in 2016 — and in the most recent local elections Reform UK stormed the wards, taking 50.4% of the vote compared with Labour’s 22.7%.

“We’ve got a lot of people who feel like the rest of the country forgot them,” said Lisa Kavanagh, who runs a betting shop and a sandwich bar on the high street. “Andy knows these streets, he remembers the old factories, but that’s not enough. People want jobs that pay and houses they can afford.”

A mayor who wants to avoid a Europe fight — for now

Nationally, Labour under Keir Starmer has signalled a pragmatic tilt: closer relations with the EU without promising re‑entry. That stance is central to Starmer’s economic argument — that mending ties can help lift growth without reopening the bloody debates that consumed British politics for a decade.

Not everyone in Labour agrees. Wes Streeting, a prominent MP and one-time cabinet minister, has publicly said he would pursue rejoining the EU if he ever led the party — a stance that has already become a political lightning rod. Supporters of Burnham claim that such blunt talk is a political gift to the other side in a seat where Leave voters are plentiful.

“If the party is split about Europe, that split is going to play out in places like Makerfield,” said Dr. Hannah Miles, a British politics lecturer at a northern university. “Burnham’s choice to sidestep the rejoin-versus-not conversation is tactical. He knows this constituency. He wants to make it about bread-and-butter issues rather than referendums and flags.”

On the ground: high streets, housing, and the human argument

Walk past the rusting shutters and the charity shops and you’ll find the stories that are driving votes here: long commutes, shuttered factories, and housing costs that make moving out of your parents’ home feel like an impossible dream. Burnham’s answer is emphatic: build council homes at scale.

“We need the biggest council house building programme since the Second World War,” he declared in an interview. “Spend the money where you get the biggest return — homes that are cheaper to rent and cheaper to run.” He pointed to a figure he says is available in the public accounts — roughly £39 billion — that, in his logic, could be redirected towards new social housing.

There’s palpable urgency behind the claim. Research from property consultancy Hamptons — cited widely by housing advocates — estimates a shortfall of around 800,000 homes over the past decade, a gap driven in part by stamp duty reforms that discouraged buy-to-let investment. Hamptons has calculated the average rent has climbed around 44% since 2016 while the supply of homes to let shrank roughly a quarter. The knock-on effect is stark: housing costs are a primary driver of household stress and poverty across many northern towns.

“We moved here so our kids could get a decent school,” said Marcus Holden, a primary schoolteacher and single father of two. “But with rents rising and wages stagnant, even teachers feel squeezed. If someone’s offering real houses, not just more glitzy flats for investors, people will listen.”

Campaign cast and the ugly edges of politics

The contest is cluttered. Reform UK has a candidate on the ground, and Nigel Farage, who helped turbocharge the Brexit debate nationally, has lent his bluster to the campaign. A tiny splinter group called Restore Britain is standing, too, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both have hopefuls. The Greens briefly suffered a candidate collapse when a social-media post forced a last-minute withdrawal; the official Loony Party has also signed up — a reminder that British politics still cherishes its eccentricities.

“We’re used to messy politics,” said Joanne Riley, an unemployed factory worker sipping tea outside the town hall. “But this feels like it’s about more than who wins here. It’s about whether politicians actually listen to places like this ever again.”

Why the result matters beyond Makerfield

Here is the uncomfortable arithmetic: a Burnham defeat would be more than a local embarrassment for Labour. It could slow or even scuttle the government’s plans to nudge the UK closer to the EU economically — a process that has been slated for discussion at a summit due to take place soon. It would also add momentum to the party’s internal critics and hand ammunition to political rivals who argue Labour is out of step with working-class voters.

Conversely, a Burnham victory would give his camp breathing room and potentially put Labour’s plans to deepen trade and regulatory cooperation with the EU back on course — or at least give them political cover to keep trying.

So what should a single constituency decide? Is it right that one bye-election should carry the weight of a national policy debate? Should local people be asked to settle an argument that has global ramifications — about trade, migration, sovereignty, investment and the future of British industry?

Polling day: a small place with big consequences

On June 18, voters in Hinley Green, Platt Bridge, Abram, Ashton, Orrell and Winstanley will file into community centres and church halls and pull levers that a few observers hope will send ripples into the centre of British politics. The scene will be unmistakably local: folding tables, tea urns, the occasional dog in a carrier, and arguments overheard about potholes and GP waiting times.

“I don’t expect any grand, sweeping answers here,” said Emily Carter, a local councillor. “I expect people to vote their pocketbooks. But whoever wins will discover quickly that national ambitions are taxed by local expectations. That, perhaps, is the most honest thing in British politics.”

So watch Makerfield if you care about where Britain goes next. Watch the smoke and the symbolism. But most of all, listen to the people whose lives this election is meant to change — the ones who have always been in the field. What happens here on a cool June day might tell us as much about Britain’s future as any summit table ever could.

Investigation into Allegations of Misconduct by Former Prince Intensifies

hanad

May 24, 2026

Probe of alleged inappropriate behaviour by former prince — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his royal titles last October

A summer day at Ascot and a question that refuses to go away

Imagine the scent of turf and perfume, the clack of horses’ hooves, the hum of conversation under wide-brimmed hats. That was Royal Ascot in 2002: a swirl of silk and tradition, the royal carriage parade threading through a crowd that had come to celebrate the Queen’s Golden Jubilee. It is the kind of scene that lodges in memory — not for the small dramas we expect at a racetrack, but for the way a single moment can be picked up decades later and examined under a cold, legal light.

Detectives from Thames Valley Police are now said to be probing an allegation that Prince Andrew behaved inappropriately toward a woman at that very event. The claim dates back to 2002, and it has reopened a painful knot of headlines, speculation and questions about how public figures are held to account.

What investigators are doing — and what they’re not saying

The police force that covers Windsor and Ascot has confirmed there is an active inquiry but, as you might expect, officers are tight-lipped about details. “We have to follow every reasonable line of inquiry,” said a force representative, offering a carefully measured acknowledgement. “Beyond that, I can’t go into specifics.”

That reticence is partly practical. The statute at the center of this probe — misconduct in public office — is not a neatly boxed offence with a clear start-and-end date. It is a common-law offence in England and Wales, historically used to address abuse of power by those holding official positions. Whether the alleged behavior falls within that definition in 2002 is one of the legal thickets investigators must cut through.

Complexities that slow down a fast-moving headline

Police work in cases that reach back years is painstaking. Officers say they are combing through physical evidence recovered in searches of the former duke’s residences in Windsor and Norfolk, sifting through documents and communications. They have also made a formal request to the United States Department of Justice for original files related to Jeffrey Epstein — material that could be relevant but has not yet been handed over.

“It’s not just about whether something happened on one day,” said Emma Reid, a retired senior investigator who has worked historic-sexual-assault inquiries. “You need witnesses, corroboration, records. Time erodes memory, and it erodes evidence. But that doesn’t mean an allegation should be dismissed because it’s old.”

The background no reader can ignore

Prince Andrew served as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment from 2001 until 2011. His friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the US financier who was convicted in 2008 of soliciting prostitution from a minor, has shadowed him ever since. Andrew has consistently denied any wrongdoing linked to Epstein.

He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on 19 February and interviewed under caution before being released under investigation. The exact year of the arrest is often treated as a detail in breathless headlines, but the core legal steps are familiar: arrest, interview, release pending further review. It’s a rhythm of modern policing that plays out in courtrooms and in public opinion.

What detectives say they want the public to understand

Some within Thames Valley Police worry the narrative has narrowed in the public eye. “People often assume we’re only looking at whether he shared information while serving as a trade envoy,” said one force source. “But the legal terms we’re exploring are broader than that.” Whether the public understands the nuances of a long-running criminal investigation is another matter entirely.

Voices from the crowd — a patchwork of reactions

On the streets of Ascot and in nearby Windsor, reactions range from incredulity to weary resignation. “Ascot was always about the hats and the horses,” said Sarah Patel, a local florist who has sold posies at the racecourse for 18 years. “We don’t want the royal weekend to be wrapped up in allegations — but neither should anything be brushed under the carpet.”

Paul Hawkins, who recalls the Jubilee weekend vividly, offered a different perspective: “There were tens of thousands of people there. If someone felt wronged, their experience matters now just as much as it would have then. The passage of time doesn’t erase that.”

Legal scholars and victims’ advocates watching the case see it as a test of several systems: policing, the law, and how institutions respond when a high-profile figure is implicated. “This is about whether established pathways for justice can handle the complications of power and privilege,” said Dr. Nadia Karim, an academic who studies public integrity. “These inquiries often force society to ask hard questions about who is scrutinized — and how.”

Why the stakes feel so big

This is more than a localised allegation about an incident at a charity event or a sporting fixture. It touches on a broader global conversation about accountability for the powerful. Around the world, institutions — from corporations to monarchies — are grappling with how to respond when people in authority are accused of misconduct.

There are also practical implications for policing. Historical allegations require investigators to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of complainants, all while working with evidence that may be fragmentary. The Crown Prosecution Service must decide whether a realistic prospect of conviction exists; that decision is shaped by law, evidence and public interest.

Questions to hold in your mind

How should societies weigh old allegations when memories fade and records become scarce?
When a public figure is implicated, how can institutions ensure impartial scrutiny?
And perhaps most difficult: what does accountability look like in a world where status and access still matter?

Where this goes next

Investigators will continueporing over material from searches of the duke’s former properties and awaiting responses to their requests for documents abroad. If the matter cannot be framed as misconduct in public office, police say they will nonetheless pursue other lines of inquiry should evidence suggest separate offences.

For many, the slow churn of legal process is unsatisfying. For others, it is a necessary check against the rush to judgment. “People want a resolution,” said Miriam O’Donnell, director of a survivors’ advocacy group. “But justice has to be careful and thorough. Rushing rarely serves anyone well.”

A reminder of what the public gaze does

Royal Ascot will go on. The hats will be worn, the horses will race, and generations will gather each summer to see a pageant of pageantry and sport. Yet events like this — and allegations tied to them — remind us that public rituals can be refracted through private harm, too. They remind us, also, that the law can be both slow and relentless.

What do you think? When history and justice intersect, what should come first: speed, certainty or fairness? Your thoughts matter because, ultimately, the way a society answers that question shapes the contours of accountability for everyone, from a neighbour to a prince.

Trump slush fund fuels threat of Republican revolt within GOP ranks

hanad

May 24, 2026

Trump sees swift end to war as Iran reviews US peace deal — Donald Trump has repeatedly played up the prospect of an agreement to end the war

Justice on a Banner: Washington’s New Nighttime Sermon

They lit the Department of Justice like a church at midnight. Across the neoclassical stone, above the columns and the bronze seals, the simple words from John Adams — “A government of laws, not men” — shimmered in white light, a rebuke and a benediction all at once.

The projection arrived not as part of a civic ceremony but as a deliberate public nudge: a group of former Justice Department officials, calling themselves Justice Connection, wanted the capital to see the phrase and ask what it meant in 2026. The banner beneath the words — a portrait of President Trump that has hung there for months — made the message impossible to ignore.

If you stood on E Street that evening, you smelled the city: hot pretzel carts, car exhaust, the faint metallic tang of the metro. Tourists snapped photos. A security guard with a sleep-lined face glanced up and muttered, “They know how to get attention, I’ll give them that.” A woman who worked nearby, clutching a grocery bag, said, “I’m tired of slogans. I want to see the laws work.” Their voices threaded into the larger hum of a city that has been, for years, a theater for protest and spectacle.

What the Light Was About

At the heart of the drama is an extraordinary settlement announced this month: a $1.776 billion compensation fund, intended to address claims that the federal government unlawfully harmed people. Critics — particularly Democrats and a growing number of Republicans — have called it a “taxpayer-funded slush fund.” The optics, they say, are worse: it could be used to pay people tied to the 6 January Capitol attack, and the administration has not ruled out payouts to people convicted in violent confrontations with police.

Two Capitol police officers have already filed suit to stop the fund, arguing that it amounts to financing insurrectionists. Lawmakers, legal scholars and civic groups are asking how such a pot of money could be set up without clearer guardrails.

Voices on the Ground

“This isn’t about left or right for me,” said a former DOJ attorney who helped organize the projection and asked to be identified as Anna Morales. “It’s about the institution. When you put a number like that on the table without transparent procedures, you invite suspicion and erode trust.”

From another corner of the city, a cab driver shrugged as downtown traffic thickened: “People are hurting. They’re worried about rent, gas, groceries. Washington games feel far away.” His comment landed hard — it is a reminder that while Gilded Age sums are bandied about on the Mall, household budgets are tight. Economic anxiety is a political velocity that alters the angles of every debate.

Republicans in Unusual Agreement

What sets this moment apart is not just the left’s outrage but the unusual, increasingly vocal resistance within the Republican ranks. Senators who have long tolerated the president’s wider playbook suddenly found themselves balking — not only over the fund but over the optics of presidential endorsements that are reshaping Texas politics and inflaming intra-party rivalries.

One senior Republican senator, who asked not to be named, told me, “The White House cut Congress out. That’s the problem. Money? That’s ours to appropriate. This feels like a bypass, and that’s dangerous.”

There are concrete consequences. Senators delayed a package of additional funding for immigration enforcement amid fury over the settlement; lawmakers were reluctant to bundle other priorities with a controversy that could redefine their own political futures. Senate Majority Leader John Thune publicly said the administration should have talked to Congress beforehand — a display of irritation that matters in Washington’s small, precise ecosystem of power.

Lines in the Sand and the Politics of Loyalty

Beyond policy, something else is being tested: loyalty. For years, tribal allegiances have insulated politicians from the political cost of aligning with the president. Now, a familiar question rolls through both chambers — is steadfastness to the president still an advantage or has it become a liability?

“You can be loyal to a leader and still demand accountability,” said Leah Rosen, a political scientist at Georgetown. “But when institutions start getting carved away for political convenience, voters may not reward pure loyalty forever. There’s a threshold where institutional norms matter more than partisanship.”

The stakes are not only constitutional. The fund, and the “forever” promise that the Internal Revenue Service will not audit the president’s old tax returns, have provoked ethical alarms. Scott Greytak of Transparency International US called the package “entirely extraordinary” and warned that it places public officials in uncharted territory by creating privileges for one person not afforded to ordinary taxpayers.

Symbols and the Slow Erosion of Norms

Washington is a city of symbols, and the last few weeks have been heavy with them. Remember the golden toilet placed on the National Mall, a satirical nod to perceived excesses? Or the makeshift “Jeffrey Epstein walk of shame” that popped up as a raw, dark commentary on accountability? These are not mere pranks — they are a texture of civic rage and satire that reveals cracks in public confidence.

Protest art and legal filings are two sides of the same civic reaction: people are using whatever tools they have to push back. But the institutional response — committee hearings, lawsuits, delayed appropriations — suggests a republic wrestling in real time with what checks and balances should look like when political stakes feel existential.

What Comes Next?

Will Congress stand up and demand clarity? Will midterm voters reward rebels who resist presidential pressure, or will they punish them? And perhaps more urgently: will ordinary Americans, struggling with inflation and daily bills, notice or care enough to change the calculus at the ballot box?

These are not questions for lawyers alone. They are social questions — about faith in institutions, about the kinds of bargains a democracy will accept in moments of tension. They test whether civic language — phrases like “rule of law” — remain beyond poetry and into practice.

When I left the DOJ building that night, the projection still hummed. A late bus sighed to a stop. A couple argued in a foreign language, lovers in the distance. The city kept doing what cities do: holding many truths at once. But for a moment, high above the chancery of power, an old phrase glowed with new urgency, asking everyone — official and citizen alike — to remember what a government is supposed to be.

1...131415...395 Page 14 of 395