Sep 29(Jowhar)-Madaxweyne Xasan Sheekh ayaa la filayaa inuu goordhow si rasmi ah u furo Kalfadhiga 7aad ee Golaha Baarlamaanka Federaalka.
Four killed, eight injured in shooting at US Mormon church
A Sunday Turned to Ashes: What Happened at the Grand Blanc Mormon Church
There are mornings that hold the soft, ordinary rituals of community—coffee poured, hymnbooks opened, children’s laughter echoing down a hallway. This was not one of them.
In Grand Blanc Township, a small Michigan town of roughly 7,700 people about 100km northwest of Detroit, worshippers gathered and minutes later found themselves running for their lives. A man drove a vehicle straight through the front doors of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meetinghouse, opened fire with an assault rifle, and then set the building alight. By the time officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect and ended the attack, at least four people were dead and eight more were wounded, officials said. Several hours later police found at least two more bodies in the charred remains; investigators warned the interior had not yet been fully cleared and that further victims may still be unaccounted for.
Moments of Terror
“We heard a big bang and the doors blew. And then everybody rushed out,” a woman who gave her name as Paula told local TV, her voice still raw. “The shooter opened fire on parishioners as they fled. I lost friends in there and some of my little primary children that I teach on Sundays were hurt. It’s very devastating for me.”
Chief William Renye of Grand Blanc Township Police said hundreds of people were inside when the attack began. The first officers—one from the state department of natural resources and one from the township—rushed to the building within 30 seconds of the first calls. They exchanged gunfire with the attacker and killed him in the church parking lot about eight minutes after the rampage began.
“There are some that are unaccounted for,” Chief Renye told reporters, underscoring the chaotic aftermath as investigators methodically combed through the remains.
The Scene: Smoke, Ash and Questions
The building was deliberately set on fire, authorities said, sending thick black smoke into a gray Michigan sky. Neighbors described an acrid smell and the wrenching sight of flames eating through familiar wood and carpet. A local volunteer firefighter, who asked not to be named, said the blaze had consumed large portions of the interior and made the recovery of victims difficult and dangerous.
“It looked like a small town chapel one would see on a postcard—until the glass and splinters were all that was left,” she said. “You don’t forget the way the smoke swallowed the windows.”
A Troubling Profile—and the Wider Context
Investigators released a skeletal outline of the suspect as they searched his home and phone records for motive. U.S. military records show the perpetrator served in the Marines from 2004 to 2008 and is an Iraq war veteran. Coincidentally, authorities in North Carolina said another 40-year-old Marine veteran was the suspect in a waterfront bar shooting less than 14 hours earlier, a grim echo that has left observers asking whether the connections are coincidence or part of a larger pattern.
The Grand Blanc attack was recorded by the Gun Violence Archive as the 324th mass shooting in the United States in 2025. The independent database counts an incident as a “mass shooting” when four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter. This Michigan tragedy came in a bleak stretch: it was the third mass shooting in under 24 hours, alongside incidents in North Carolina and at a casino in Eagle Pass, Texas.
Why does this keep happening?
That’s the question echoing through churches, legislatures, and living rooms across the country. Is it a failure of policy? A failure of mental health systems? A failure to spot a cry for help before it becomes a public calamity? Experts point to a knot of interconnected causes: high availability of military-grade weapons in civilian markets, social alienation, untreated trauma among some veterans, and the contagion effect of media coverage.
Dr. Lena Ortiz, a clinical psychologist who studies trauma and violence, said: “We are seeing the compounding effects of untreated PTSD, social isolation, and easy access to lethal means. Veterans often come back with invisible wounds; without adequate support and community care, some are at higher risk of spiraling into violence.”
Voices from Grand Blanc
On the town’s main street, there were small acts of defiance against despair. A bakery donated coffee and bagels for first responders. A florist placed bouquets and handwritten notes near the police tape. An older man, a lifelong resident who runs the local hardware store, paused before speaking.
“This is a town where we put up holiday lights together,” he said slowly. “We don’t expect the world to end at our doorstep. But it did. For some of our families, it really did.”
A pastor from a neighboring congregation echoed that mixture of grief and resolve: “Places of worship are meant to be refuges. We cannot let violence make them into battlegrounds.”
Leadership Reacts
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer posted: “My heart is breaking for the Grand Blanc community. Violence anywhere, especially in a place of worship, is unacceptable.” The FBI was reported to be on the scene, joining local and state law enforcement in the investigation.
On social media, former President Donald Trump framed the attack as “yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America” and urged that “THIS EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY MUST END, IMMEDIATELY!”
What Comes Next for Grand Blanc—and for the Nation
In the immediate term, families want answers. Investigators will piece together timelines, sift through phone records, scour the suspect’s personal history, and interview neighbors and worshippers. For those in the pews, the practical questions loom large: How do we keep our children safe during Sunday school? Should small congregations hire security? Who pays for bulletproof doors and surveillance systems?
Beyond the local, the nation has to reckon with a familiar but deeply painful calculus: how to honor freedom and safety, how to care for veterans without criminalizing trauma, how to reduce the lethal reach of weapons designed for war. Are more laws the answer? Or is the solution a web of investments—mental health services, community programs, veteran outreach, and sensible firearm safeguards—that reduce risk before tragedy strikes?
Remembering—and Rebuilding
Already, Grand Blanc is shaping rituals of remembrance. Neighbors are organizing vigils. Volunteers are preparing to host counseling sessions. Church members are making lists of names of those missing and those rescued. In a community where so much of daily life is knitted together—potlucks, school fundraisers, service projects—the work of healing will be carried out by ordinary people showing up for one another.
As you read this, consider what sanctuary means in your own life. Is it a building, a network of friends, a faith, or perhaps a community safety net that never lets a neighbor fall through the cracks? When violence visits a small town like Grand Blanc, the ripples spread far beyond its borders. The questions it raises are national, and the answers will require collective courage.
“We are not going to let this define us,” a young woman who helps teach primary children said, wiping her eyes. “We will hold the names of the lost and keep teaching the children to sing. That’s how we keep the light on.”
Madaxweyne Xasan oo maanta furaya kalfadhigii u danbeeyay ee BFS
Sep 29(Jowhar)-Magaalada Muqdisho waxa maanta la filayaa in uu dib u furmo kalfadhi ay yeelanayaan barlamaanka Soomaaliya oo fasax ku maqnaa tan iyo 22-kii bishii June ee sanadkan.
Valencia region under red alert as torrential rains expected
Valencia on Edge: A Red Alert and the Memory of Last October’s Deluge
There is a particular hush that falls over coastal cities when the sky darkens and the weather app flashes a word you do not want to see: rojo. Tonight, that hush is washing across Valencia, Castellón and Tarragona, where Spain’s meteorological agency, Aemet, has issued a red rain warning — “riesgo extraordinario” — for this evening and into tomorrow. For many here, the alert is more than a color on a screen; it is the return of a season they would rather forget.
Last October’s storms left a scar across the Valencian Community. Torrents of water carved new channels through towns, swept away homes and roads, and claimed 235 lives. The images from that week — mud-smeared streets, cars piled like toys, families standing numb on embankments — are still fresh in the collective memory. That trauma is why the arrival of another red alert feels like a summons to attention, and to action.
Phones Buzz. Sirens Wail. Routine Breaks.
By late afternoon, many Valencians had received the government’s emergency notifications on their phones: instructions to seek higher ground, to avoid travel, to heed the advice of local emergency services. City officials in Valencia announced that schools, universities and public spaces — libraries, parks, gardens, markets and even cemeteries — will be closed on Monday. It is a city pressing pause in the face of a weather threat.
“We don’t want to take chances,” said a municipal official, speaking on condition of anonymity as they coordinated logistics for temporary shelters. “People are fragile after what they endured last year. If that means closing the city so emergency crews can move freely, then that’s what we’ll do.”
Not every voice speaks of fear. “When the council closed the market, I packed up and walked home,” said Maribel, a 58-year-old vendor who sells citrus and mussels at Valencia’s central market. “I hate missing a day, but I’d rather be safe. My son lost his car last year to the flood. We learned the hard way.”
From the Embassy to the Corner Café: A Global Community Responds
The alerts have rippled outward beyond Spain’s borders. The Irish Embassy in Madrid issued a short, clear message on social media urging Irish nationals in the region to follow local authorities and provided a consular contact number. Other consulates have been making similar calls, a reminder of how these storms travel in headlines and in heartbeats across the globe.
“We are monitoring the situation and ready to help our citizens if needed,” an embassy tweet read, echoing a practical, calm refrain that officials hope will prevent panic and channel people toward practical steps.
Why the Alarm? A Weather System with Memory
Aemet’s red warning is not handed out lightly. It signals the possibility of exceptional rainfall rates, flash flooding, widespread disruption, and risk to life. In this region, the threat is amplified by geography — the Mediterranean climate, steep river catchments, and low-lying coastal plains — and by memory. Villages perched on riverbanks and towns nestling between orange groves know that the landscape can change overnight.
“We are dealing with a system that can concentrate a year’s worth of rain in a matter of hours,” explained an atmospheric scientist at the University of Valencia. “Climate change increases the atmosphere’s capacity to hold moisture, which raises the odds for intense downpours. That doesn’t mean every storm is caused solely by warming — weather is complex — but human-driven climate change is a multiplier of risk.”
International assessments support this pattern. Recent research, including IPCC findings, shows an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in many regions. Mediterranean climates are especially vulnerable to sudden bursts of heavy rain that can overwhelm rivers and drainage systems.
Local Anger, Global Questions
After last year’s catastrophe, a chorus of anger and grief rose from the streets. Residents staged protests accusing regional authorities of failing to warn them adequately — a bitter irony, given that Aemet had issued alerts during that event. “We were told it was just a heavy rain,” said Antonio, 72, who lost part of his house in the October floods. “Nobody came with a loudspeaker, no one knocked on doors. We had to swim out ourselves.”
Those accusations have not entirely subsided; they have evolved into a broader conversation about governance, infrastructure and preparedness. Questions about maintenance of river channels, the state of urban drainage, and coordination between regional and national agencies now sit alongside climate questions. The protests were not merely about blame — they were a demand for accountability.
Scenes from the Street: Orange Trees, Horchata Stands, and an Unsettled Calm
There is local color even in a city bracing for storms. Valencia’s orange trees — a defining image of the city — stand dark against the lowering sky, their fruit hanging like small suns. The port smells faintly of salt and diesel. In Alboraya, where horchata stands line the sidewalks, proprietors have pulled canvas over their stalls, muttering about lost trade and the stubbornness of business owners who continue to plan for tomorrow while preparing for the worst.
“People here are resilient,” said Lucía, who runs a small guesthouse in a historical barrio. “We will batten down, we will check on elderly neighbors. But we also want better planning. I am tired of waking up and checking news of more disasters.”
Practical Steps, Human Stories
Officials have been clear: follow instructions, stay indoors if possible, avoid driving through flooded roads, and keep emergency kits ready. For many, this is not novel advice but a necessary reminder. For some, it is a vivid anxiety, a reopening of old wounds.
Consider the teacher who turned her classroom into an emergency sewing room last year, stitching together tarpaulin and hope. Or the volunteer firefighter who remembers the sound of children calling for help from attic windows. These are human details that statistics alone cannot convey.
- What to prepare: charged phones, flashlights, important documents in waterproof bags, a basic emergency kit.
- What to avoid: driving on flooded roads, returning to damaged buildings before they’re declared safe.
- Where to seek help: follow local authority updates, check embassy guidance if you are a foreign national, call emergency services if in immediate danger.
Beyond the Storm: A Moment to Rethink Resilience
As the first drops begin to fall, readers might ask themselves: how do we live with weather that is less predictable and more violent? How do cities like Valencia, with their rich history and fragile modern infrastructures, adapt? These are not only local questions but global ones. Coastal cities around the world — from Miami to Mumbai, from Lisbon to Lagos — are confronting the same dilemmas: upgrade infrastructure, strengthen early warning systems, and invest in social safety nets that protect the most vulnerable.
“Adaptation is as important as mitigation,” the university scientist said. “We need both: reduce emissions to limit future warming, and build smarter, greener infrastructure now so communities can withstand what comes.”
And there is another, quieter answer that matters: community. When storms arrive, neighbors looking out for neighbors, chefs feeding emergency workers, teachers opening gymnasiums as shelters—these are acts of resilience that no weather model can fully predict.
A Final Thought — and a Question to You
Tonight, Valencia waits and prepares. It is a city with orange scent in the air and flood scars in its memory. The red alert is a warning light and a call to care. If you were here, what would you want your city to do differently next time? How can communities worldwide learn from Valencia’s experience to better protect the fragile, the elderly, the poor — and the places that hold our memories?
Listen for the sirens, follow the alerts, and if you are reading from afar, spare a thought for the people who will sleep lightly tonight, as they always do before a storm. They will be ready, as much as readiness can be mustered, and they will be watching the sky.
China Hands Death Sentence to Former Agriculture Minister
When a Gatekeeper Falls: The Tang Renjian Case and the Price of Power in Modern China
On a gray morning in Changchun, snow still clinging to the bare branches of Jilin’s poplars, a court statement landed like a cold gust across Beijing’s corridors of power: Tang Renjian, once the man charged with stewarding China’s farms, has been sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve for accepting more than 268 million yuan in bribes—roughly €32.4 million, or about $37 million.
It is a dramatic coda to a long political career that stretched from the windswept plateaus of Gansu to the humid rice paddies of Guangxi, and finally to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, where Tang was expected to reassure a nation that feeds nearly a fifth of the world’s population. Instead, the charge sheet reads like a parable about how power, even when lodged in the service of public sustenance, can rot from the inside.
What the sentence means
The Changchun People’s Court said Tang’s acceptance of cash and property over a 17-year period “caused particularly severe losses to the interests of the state and the people,” a formulation that in China’s legal vocabulary often signals the harshest of punishments. The two-year reprieve attached to the death sentence, however, carries an important caveat: historically, many such sentences are commuted to life imprisonment if the convict shows genuine remorse and commits no further offenses during the reprieve period.
“This is not simply a legal decision; it’s a political message,” said Zhao Min, a Beijing-based analyst who has studied anti-corruption drives for a decade. “Whether it’s deterrence, governance reform, or elite management, these high-profile cases reverberate far beyond the courtroom.”
A campaign and its contradictions
Tang’s fall is the latest in a cascade of investigations that have reshaped the Chinese elite since President Xi Jinping launched an expansive anti-graft campaign more than a decade ago. The drive has ensnared thousands—by some government counts, more than 1.5 million officials at various levels have been disciplined since 2012—bringing down household names and obscure functionaries alike.
Supporters praise the campaign for tackling everyday corruption and rebuilding some measure of public trust after years of scandals. “When officials steal, it’s not just money—it’s trust that walks out the door,” said Liu Fang, a schoolteacher from a village outside Lanzhou in Gansu province. “People here want fairness; they want to know that regulators are held to the same rules as everyone else.”
And yet, critics warn of a darker seam running through the effort: selective prosecutions, internal party discipline that bypasses open legal scrutiny, and the consolidation of political authority under one leader. “Anti-corruption in China has cleaned streets and closed off stairways to rivals at the same time,” said Professor Emily Carter, a scholar of Chinese politics at an international university. “It’s both governance reform and a tool of political management—sometimes both, sometimes neither.”
From Gansu to Guangxi to the Ministry
Tang’s career trajectory reads like a map of China’s regional diversity. As governor of the arid, resource-strewn province of Gansu, he oversaw development plans for a population used to subsistence farming and migration to coastal factories. Later, as vice-chair of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, he navigated a mosaic of ethnic communities and subtropical agriculture. His rise to head the ministry that oversees grain policy, rural subsidies, and agricultural modernization was, on paper, the natural endpoint of a technocratic path.
“We heard him speak about seed research and rural electrification,” recalled Sun Mei, a cooperative leader in Guangxi. “He knew the names of towns you wouldn’t expect a minister to remember.”
That intimacy with rural life makes the bribery charges feel particularly bitter for many farmers and small-town officials who look to central ministries for support amid climate change, water shortages, and market volatility. Agriculture contributes only a fraction of China’s GDP now—roughly the high single digits—but it remains the backbone of food security and livelihoods for hundreds of millions. About a third of the country still lives outside the major urban centers, tethered to soil and season.
Ripple effects across sectors
Tang’s downfall follows probes into other high-level figures in the defense establishment, including former defence ministers. Those successive investigations suggest that no ministry is immune, and they raise questions about the stability of institutions that manage national security, food, and infrastructure.
“When you take down a minister, you don’t only remove a person—you examine trust networks, procurement chains, and policy legacies,” said Zhang Wei, a former civil servant turned anti-corruption consultant. “The aftershocks can affect everything from military procurement to seed distribution.”
Voices on the ground
In villages across Gansu and Guangxi, the reaction has been a tangle of relief, resignation, and skepticism. “It’s right that corrupt officials face punishment,” said He Jun, an elder who remembers famine-era shortages. “But will it change things? Or will new officials play the same game?”
Others worry about the optics. “Every headline like this chips at our sense of national competence,” said Mei Yu, a youth entrepreneur in Changchun. “We want clean leadership, yes. But we also want consistent policies that help us make a living.”
Could this be a turning point?
That is the million-yuan question—or, in Tang’s case, the hundreds of millions of yuan question. Will the prosecution of a senior agricultural official result in systemic reforms: clearer oversight, transparent contracting, stronger protections for whistleblowers? Or will it simply inaugurate a new phase of elite reshuffling, where the names change but the machinery of patronage endures?
Experts emphasize that durable change requires institutions, not just headlines. “Anti-corruption works when courts are independent, audits are public, and media can investigate without fear,” said Professor Carter. “Otherwise, it’s enforcement without accountability.”
What readers should watch next
Beyond Tang’s sentence, the broader signals matter: appointments to replace him, whether assets are recovered and returned to the public purse, and whether the legal process remains transparent. International observers will also watch how this case influences food policy and global agricultural markets, however subtly—after all, when a country that grows a large share of the world’s rice, wheat, and corn tightens or loosens policy, suppliers and consumers everywhere feel it.
So I ask you: when leaders fall, what should we ask of the systems they leave behind? How do we measure progress—by the number of prosecutions, the lives improved, or the institutions reformed? The Tang case is at once a domestic drama and a chapter in a global story about power, accountability, and the vital politics of food.
In the quiet room where judges read decisions, and in the fields where harvests will be planned next season, the real test begins. Will this be seen as a warning, a cleansing, or simply another turn in the long cycle of power? If we care about good governance—and about the millions who put their hands to the land—we should watch closely.
Denmark confirms fresh drone sightings near military bases
A Quiet Country on Edge: Denmark’s Night Skies and the New Age of Unseen Conflict
Morning in Copenhagen usually arrives with the comforting clatter of bikes, the smell of fresh rye bread and a slow, civilized bustle. This week, however, there was something else in the air — an invisible question mark that hovered above boulevards and airport runways alike.
Since Monday, Danish defence authorities have logged a string of unexplained drone observations across military sites and civilian airspace. The reports are oddly familiar and unnerving: lights bobbing over towns at night, pilots diverted, airports temporarily closed, and citizens phoning in worries — hundreds of such calls, officials say, many of them unconfirmed but all adding to a growing sense of unease.
“We woke up to police lights and people staring up at the sky,” said Søren, who runs a bakery near Aalborg Airport. “You expect storms or a blackout, not tiny aircraft with no name.” More than five airports have seen interruptions in recent days, according to aviation sources, and the ripple effects have been tangible — delayed flights, strained staff and a frisson of anxiety among the crews responsible for keeping planes aloft.
Allies Tighten the Net: NATO, Frigates and Baltic Sentry
The sightings have attracted more than local worry. At a NATO gathering in Riga, military officials agreed to ratchet up monitoring in the Baltic Sea corridor, an area already under strategic scrutiny ever since Eastern Europe’s tensions rose. NATO spokespeople described a plan to deploy “multi-domain” assets — a phrase meaning a blend of sea-, air- and electronic-intelligence tools — under the banner of Baltic Sentry.
Among the reinforcements: the German air-defence frigate FSG Hamburg, which sailed into Copenhagen this week. Danish defence officials say the vessel will help monitor airspace during the upcoming European Union summit, when heads of state and governments will converge on the Danish capital.
“This is about more than a ship; it’s a visible commitment from our allies,” a senior defence official told me, speaking on condition of anonymity. “When you bring maritime radar, electronic surveillance and naval fire-control systems into a harbour, it changes the equation for anyone thinking of creating mischief.”
Citizens, Rules and the Cost of Caution
In a decisive — some would say intrusive — response, the Danish transport ministry announced a temporary ban on all civilian drones during the summit. The ban, which begins tomorrow and runs through Friday, is blunt: recreational and commercial hobby flights are off-limits; violations could mean fines or even prison sentences of up to two years.
The prohibition comes with clear exemptions: military drones, police and emergency operations, and health-related municipal flights will still be permitted. Authorities say the measure is pragmatic: remove the noise and ambiguity so that if an unidentified drone appears, it is not mistaken for a legal operator.
“We cannot tolerate what we’ve seen — confusion, alarm and the possibility of interference during a major diplomatic meeting,” Transport Minister Thomas Danielsen said in a statement. “We must give EU leaders security when they come here.”
What the Technology Looks Like on the Ground
Hunters of small unmanned aircraft systems (known in military jargon as C-UAS) are arriving too. Germany confirmed it will provide counter-drone capabilities following Denmark’s request; Sweden has said it will lend anti-drone systems as well. These systems tend to combine radar, radio-frequency detectors, optical sensors and acoustic arrays, with some able to jam control signals or take over a drone’s link to its operator.
- Radar: picks up unusual low-flying targets against cluttered backgrounds.
- Optical/infrared sensors: provide visual confirmation and tracking.
- Radio-frequency detectors: identify control and telemetry signals.
- Mitigation tools: from jammers to nets and kinetic interceptors.
“It’s a layered game,” said Dr. Amina Hassan, a security analyst specializing in emerging technologies. “No single sensor will solve this. You need detection, identification and mitigation — and you need rules of engagement that are legally and ethically sound.”
Politics, Accusations and a Climate of Blame
Who is behind the flights remains unresolved. Danish and NATO leaders have warned that attribution is a complex task and have not ruled out state-linked actors. Moscow has been pointed to as a possibility by some commentators; the Russian embassy in Copenhagen has dismissed such accusations.
Beyond national capitals, the rhetoric has been sharp. Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko suggested that any attempt by NATO forces to shoot down Russian or Belarusian aircraft would prompt an immediate response. And Russia’s foreign minister reiterated that Moscow will respond decisively to what it deems violations of its airspace. These comments underscore the risk that a seemingly small drone incident could escalate into a wider diplomatic — or worse, military — confrontation.
“We’re navigating a grey zone,” noted Jens Pedersen, a retired Air Force officer living in Aarhus. “It’s not full-scale war. It’s also not harmless. It’s designed to disorient.”
Daily Life Under New Rules: Small Stories, Big Feeling
In the shadow of these strategic maneuvers are ordinary people making decisions: hotels rerouting their shuttle schedules, cafes near the conference centre preparing for a surge of security staff, an airport technician in Aalborg double-checking runway lights. A Copenhagen hotel manager, Line, described how staff practice calm in the face of uncertainty: “We tell guests: ‘Come for the cinnamon rolls, not the headlines.’ But you can see the edge in people’s voices.”
Paradoxically, the ban on civilian drones also highlights modern dependencies. Photographers who use drones to shoot weddings and small businesses that deliver medicines by air are now paused. The public is asked to be vigilant — and to report suspicious activity — yet citizens worry about overreaction and rights curtailed in the name of safety.
What This Means for the World
Denmark’s moment is not an isolated flinch; it’s a symptom of a broader trend. As small, cheap, and increasingly capable drones proliferate, democracies must reconcile open skies with the hard realities of defence. How do societies protect critical infrastructure and public spaces while preserving the freedoms that citizens cherish?
Ask yourself: would you be willing to see stricter controls on airspace if it meant fewer scares? Or does the risk of giving authorities too much power feel counterproductive? The balance is delicate and the stakes are high.
For now, Denmark has chosen vigilance and clarity. NATO allies have stepped up surveillance and countermeasures. Local life goes on, even as people glance up a little more often, imagining the tiny machines that can unsettle the quiet of an otherwise ordinary morning.
“This isn’t just a Danish problem,” said Dr. Hassan. “Every country with an open sky and a democratic society will be asking the same questions in the years to come.”
Moscow dismisses Zelensky’s ‘bomb shelter’ threats as baseless
When the Sky Became a Battlefield: A Night in Kyiv That Felt Like the End of the World
The morning after, Kyiv smelled of smoke and wet concrete. The city’s skyline — familiar cupolas, Soviet-era apartment blocks, the glint of new glass towers — looked like a photograph left too close to the stove: edges softened, windows blackened. For more than twelve hours, residents lived with the thump of explosions and the frantic, metallic rattle of anti-aircraft systems. At dawn, the air raid sirens finally fell silent, leaving behind a stunned hush and small, human acts of salvage.
The numbers that haunt the day
Ukrainian officials said the barrage was enormous: 595 drones and 48 missiles launched overnight, they reported, with air defenses intercepting 568 drones and 43 missiles. The human cost was grim: at least four people killed and dozens injured — local authorities gave figures ranging from 67 to 80 wounded as rescue teams combed through flattened façades and shattered apartments.
Beyond the casualty list, the war’s geography continued to expand. A pro-Ukrainian mapping project, Deep State, estimates that Russia now controls roughly 114,918 square kilometres — nearly one-fifth of Ukraine — and that in the past year alone it has seized 4,729 square kilometres more. These figures have become waypoints on a map of grief, a shorthand for loss.
Voices from the rubble
“I woke to the sound of the sky falling,” said Olena, a schoolteacher in the Dnieper suburb, standing ankle-deep in broken glass. “We ran to the metro with our neighbour’s cat in a shoebox. My students are only ten and eleven. How do you explain this to them?”
At a makeshift triage near an injured cardiology clinic, a nurse named Pavlo rubbed his eyes and handed out sterile bandages. “We treated burns in halls meant for check-ups,” he said. “We used mattresses as stretchers. The children were quiet — shock is loud in a small body.”
Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, arrived at one of the damaged hospital sites and spoke directly to cameras, voice steady but exhausted. “We will fix this. We will bury those we’ve lost and rebuild what they destroyed,” he said. “Every brick carries a memory of someone’s life.”
What unfolded: targets, tactics, and a strained defense
The strikes were, according to Moscow’s defence ministry, aimed at military infrastructure — airfields and installations — part of what they called a “massive” long-range campaign using air, sea and drone assets. Kyiv’s leaders, however, were unequivocal that civilian sites were hit: a cardiology clinic, factories, energy generation sites and residential buildings all suffered damage.
Poland, watching air traffic and missile arcs with nervous intensity, briefly closed its airspace near two southeastern cities and scrambled fighter jets until officials judged the danger had passed. The regional alarm was tangible — an aerial reminder that when a war of this scale hits, borders become thin paper.
“The scale of the drone wave suggests a doctrinal shift,” said Anna Koval, a military analyst based in Warsaw. “Drones allow saturation attacks: they’re cheap, expendable, and hard to intercept in large numbers. Countries that can field robust integrated air defenses are in a better position, but those systems are rare and, frankly, expensive.”
Air defences stretched thin
Ukraine’s defenders performed prodigies. Shooting down more than 500 drones and dozens of missiles is no small feat. Yet this is a marathon, not a sprint. Officials in Kyiv have repeatedly appealed to partner nations for more systems to plug the holes in the sky. President Volodymyr Zelensky announced an additional Patriot missile system from Israel had been deployed, with two more expected in autumn — an indication of how vital, and how fragile, aerial protection has become.
“Every Patriot launcher we have is like a lifeguard on duty,” said a senior Ukrainian air defense officer who asked not to be named. “But even lifeguards can’t save everyone if the tide keeps coming.”
Politics, energy, and the wider chessboard
The strike night arrived against a backdrop of diplomatic urgency. Mr. Zelensky used the attacks to press international partners to cut off Russian energy revenues that finance the invasion. “The time for decisive action is long overdue,” he wrote on Telegram, imploring the United States, Europe, the G7 and the G20 to act.
Yet even as Kyiv pleads, global politics complicate the calculus. The report notes that Ukraine has so far been unable to persuade U.S. President Donald Trump to impose stricter punitive measures on Moscow — a reminder how domestic politics in faraway capitals can shape the fate of people under bombardment.
Energy sanctions are not a simple flip of a switch. Russia’s oil and gas remain integrated into global markets. Cutting off income streams requires coordinated policy and a willingness among major economies to bear short-term economic pain for a geopolitical aim. It’s a heavy lift — but one many in Kyiv see as necessary.
The human face of geopolitics
“This is not only about missiles or pipelines,” said Dr. Iryna Melnyk, a humanitarian coordinator. “It is about the economy of grief. When factories and hospitals are hit, you remove future productivity and current care. You change social fabric.”
Back on the street, a bakery near the metro handed out warm loaves to those emerging from the shelter, flour still on their jackets. An old man in a grey babushka, pushing a trolley, told a reporter: “We lived through famine and occupation. We know how to be patient. But patience has a limit.”
Why this matters beyond Kyiv
Ask yourself: what does a night of drone swarms tell us about the future of war? About how technology democratizes destruction? About how cities and civilians are now squarely within a military’s sight?
This was not a contained skirmish. It was an exhibition of asymmetric tactics that can be replicated elsewhere. It raises questions about how democracies should invest in civil defense, how international law adapts to remote, automated weapons, and how global energy dependencies can be weaponized.
And it forces a deeper question of solidarity. When a hospital is struck and a cardiology ward is on the floor, how do nations respond — with words, with sanctions, with weapons, or with nothing at all?
After the sirens
By midday, neighbours were sharing tea on stoops, swapping stories of who had sheltered children in basements and who had given up a mattress for a stranger. The city did what cities do: it transformed grief into small acts of kindness. Yet beneath the ritual of repair was an undeniable exhaustion.
“We will plant trees where the rubble is removed,” Olena said, and then smiled through a break in her voice. “Not because trees erase pain, but because they insist life continues.”
For readers thousands of kilometres away: watch the skies, yes, but also watch the small domestic acts that define resilience. Ask how your country is prepared for the drone era. Think about how economic choices in Brussels, Washington or Beijing ripple into the lives of people like Olena and Pavlo. And remember that for those living in the shadow of a war, every siren is a question they did not ask to be asked.
UN sanctions against Iran imminent after failed bid to delay
When Diplomacy Paused: The Snapback That Reopened the Door to Confrontation
There are moments in international life when the entire globe seems to hold its breath. I felt it in two cities this week: the hushed corridors of the United Nations, where diplomats murmured into phones and scanned scrolling votes, and the winding alleys of Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, where vendors paused from weighing saffron and pistachios to listen to their radios. Both places told the same story—one of a sharply divided world, and a fragile pause that was not to last.
A Deadline Written in Law and Time
One month ago, three European powers—the E3 of Britain, France and Germany—pulled the trigger on a mechanism that has been rarely used but always feared: the United Nations “snapback.” Enshrined in UN Security Council resolution 2231, the snapback allows an aggrieved signatory to the 2015 nuclear deal to reinstate UN sanctions within a 30‑day period if it believes Tehran has failed to honor its commitments.
The clock ran its course. Western capitals argued there had been insufficient transparency from Tehran over its enrichment activities, particularly after what officials described as retaliatory countermeasures following strikes on Iranian facilities earlier this year. A diplomatic push—led by Moscow and Beijing—to delay the sanctions for another six months fell flat in the 15‑member council: only four states backed the draft delay, nine voted no and two abstained.
“We simply do not see a clear path to a swift diplomatic solution,” a senior British UN diplomat told reporters after the vote. “The process laid out in resolution 2231 has been followed—today, measures come back into force.”
What Comes Back
The sanctions package that will revive is wide-ranging. UN restrictions include an arms embargo, limitations on uranium enrichment and reprocessing, constraints on ballistic missile activity that could deliver nuclear payloads, and targeted asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities. European Union measures will snap back soon after—adding another layer of pressure on Iran’s already strained economy.
- UN snapback triggered: 30‑day process initiated by E3
- Security Council vote: 4 supported Russia/China draft delay; 9 voted no; 2 abstained
- Sanctions to return: arms embargo, enrichment bans, asset freezes, travel bans
Voices from Tehran: Resignation, Defiance, and Worry
In Tehran, the reaction was swift and bitter. State media reported that Iran recalled ambassadors to Germany, France and the UK for consultations—an ascent down the diplomatic ladder. In simple cafés frequented by retirees and students, the conversation oscillated between anger and weary realism.
“It feels like deja vu,” said Fatemeh, a civil engineer who still remembers the first round of sanctions in 2018. “Sanctions hurt ordinary people. They make medicines expensive, they make living impossible. The leadership says they will respond; we pray it does not mean war.”
At the Grand Bazaar, an elderly spice merchant named Hossein folded a cloth around a small bundle of saffron and looked out toward the traffic. “We went through this before when the Americans left the deal in 2018,” he said. “I have customers who say they will stock up, others who say they will leave. The city hums with worry.”
Iranian officials insist they are not seeking nuclear weapons. “We will not abandon the Non‑Proliferation Treaty,” a government spokesman told a local news outlet. “We are willing to be transparent about our inventory of enriched uranium.” Still, Tehran’s foreign minister called the reimposition “legally void and politically reckless,” and warned that diplomacy would be “more difficult and more complicated” going forward.
A World Split: Diplomacy, Law and Geopolitics
The vote at the Security Council was not simply a tally of yes and no. It was a snapshot of a fracturing world order. Russia and China argued for patience and insisted that reimposing sanctions now would bury the last remnants of diplomatic space; Western capitals argued that patience had already been exhausted.
“This is not a triumph,” said an EU diplomat. “It is a reluctant step. The hope—always the hope—is to build a path back to talks that can produce verifiable limits on sensitive activity. But you cannot negotiate from a position of opacity.”
And yet, some in the corridors of the UN saw the move as a forced punctuation rather than a full stop. France publicly insisted that the return of sanctions “is not the end of diplomacy.” The United States echoed that the door to talks could remain open—if Tehran met clear steps on inspections and transparency.
Inspections, and the Clock that Keeps Ticking
Adding to the complexity, the International Atomic Energy Agency said inspectors had been allowed back into Iranian nuclear sites this week. It is a technical victory for verification—but not, in the eyes of many in the West, proof of full cooperation. How many cameras are working? What inventories will be shared? Those are the questions that determine whether sanctions remain a bludgeon or a lever.
Local Color, Global Consequences
Walk the streets of Tehran and you will see murals of long national endurance painted beside glassy new shopping centers. Shops sell postcards with slogans—“Survive and Smile”—alongside posters with political slogans. Young people, many of whom came of age after the 2015 deal, speak in a different idiom than their elders: they want normalcy, jobs, the ability to travel. The reimposition of sanctions threatens those aspirations.
“Sanctions are supposed to hit the elite,” said Dr. Leila Hosseini, an economist at a Tehran university. “But they ripple outward—importing inflation, reducing foreign investment, hurting pharmaceutical imports. The social cost accumulates.”
What Comes Next—and What Should We Watch For?
Policy makers and citizens around the world must ask a few uncomfortable questions: Can sanctions catalyze a return to meaningful, verifiable diplomacy, or will they harden positions and encourage escalation? How will regional actors—Israel, Gulf states, and Russia—respond to a re‑sanctioned Iran? What role should neutral parties and institutions play to keep lines of communication open?
History offers no tidy answer. The 2015 nuclear deal showed that parity between strict verification and political détente is possible—but also fragile. The 2018 withdrawal of the United States from that deal taught another lesson: that goodwill and legal architecture can unravel quickly in the face of unilateral action.
For people living under the shadow of sanctions, the immediate stakes are human and tangible: access to medicines, employment, and the daily rhythms of life. For the global community, the stakes are strategic: the prevention of nuclear proliferation, regional stability, and the credibility of multilateral institutions.
Final Reflection: What Kind of World Do We Want?
As you read this, somewhere a diplomat is drafting options, an analyst is revising a briefing, and a family is calculating whether to buy extra medicine. These are not abstract processes; they are decisions with faces and names attached. What do we want the international system to be—punitive and solitary, or patient and collective?
In the weeks ahead, watch for the technical details: IAEA reports on monitoring, the exact list of individuals and entities targeted by sanctions, and whether back‑channel talks quietly revive. Watch, too, for the human stories—people like Hossein, the saffron seller, who simply want to keep their shops open and feed their families.
Diplomacy, like a delicate instrument, requires both pressure and touch. As the snapback tightens once more, the world will learn whether that instrument can still play a tune of restraint—or whether the notes will break into something louder and more dangerous.
UN Reimposes Sanctions on Iran Following Collapse of Nuclear Talks
When the World’s Levers Snap Back: Sanctions, Silence, and the Reverberations in Iran
I woke to messages from friends in Tehran who could not yet say whether the city felt different — only that the same traffic choked the same boulevards, that the same vendors hawked the same bitter, sweet saffron and rosewater pastries from beneath canvas awnings. But the headlines told another story: after months of frantic diplomacy, a decades-old mechanism of the United Nations had been triggered, and global sanctions on Iran had been restored at the stroke of midnight.
“It’s like the old clock started ticking again,” said a teacher in northern Tehran, sipping tea from a chipped cup. “People talk loudly at home and quietly in public. We have lived under layers of pressure for so long that sometimes you don’t notice a new one until it breaks something you rely on.”
What Happened — and Why It Matters
At the center of this renewed pressure is the so-called “snapback” — a provision born from the 2015 nuclear agreement (the JCPOA) that allowed participating powers to reimpose UN Security Council sanctions if Iran was judged to be violating its commitments. The mechanism, dormant for years, was activated by European powers after a final, failed round of talks to curb Tehran’s nuclear programme.
Diplomacy had been grinding toward a fragile promise: inspectors would return to Iran’s nuclear sites, and negotiators would try one last time to rewrite the terms. Instead, last-minute offers and counteroffers collapsed. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian described a U.S. proposal as unacceptable — one which, according to Tehran, essentially demanded the country hand over its entire enriched uranium stockpile for only temporary relief.
Russia and China attempted an eleventh-hour postponement, arguing that more time and finesse were needed, but the Security Council vote fell short. When the clock hit 1am Irish time, the old limitations on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile-related dealings sprang back to life — not just symbolic statements, but measures that ripple through finance, shipping, and industrial supply chains.
Voices From the Corridors of Power — and the Market
“For us, it is imperative: Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon,” Germany’s foreign minister told the UN General Assembly, underscoring why Berlin, London and Paris sought the sanctions’ return. “But let me emphasise: we remain open to negotiations on a new agreement. Diplomacy can and should continue.”
At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov published a blistering rebuke, calling the move “the final exposure” of what Moscow views as Western coercion. “We will not enforce these sanctions,” he said, framing the action as both illegitimate and counterproductive.
“Sanctions are double-edged,” said Dr. Leila Haddad, an economist who has studied Iran’s black-market foreign-exchange networks. “They can slow industrial progress, but they also push a country to find new ways to trade. The question is what happens to ordinary people when those alternate paths are closed.”
The Human Arithmetic: Costs, Coping, and the Daily Graft
Sanctions are rarely a blunt instrument aimed only at governments. Banks feel the squeeze first, then traders, then factory owners, and finally consumers. Iran’s economy has been in a long drought of external capital and reliable supply chains, and many Iranians already live with the consequences: shrinking real wages, spotty imports of medical equipment, and frequent surges in the cost of staples.
Official statistics have varied over recent years, but independent analyses have documented persistent high inflation and a currency whose purchasing power has eroded significantly since 2018. Oil exports — once a mainstay, sometimes topping millions of barrels a day in past decades — have been volatile under sanctions, with Tehran relying increasingly on alternative buyers, complex shipping arrangements and a patchwork of barter and barter-like deals.
“When the rial falls, everything else rises — the price of bread, the price of a father’s ability to get medicine,” said a pharmacist in Shiraz, who asked not to be named. “We see shortages before the officials do.”
Practical Knock-on Effects
- Banking and Insurance: Reinstated UN measures typically make international banks and shipping insurers more cautious, raising the cost of transactions even where trade isn’t explicitly banned.
- Energy Markets: Any renewed restrictions on Iran’s petroleum and petrochemicals trade can tighten global markets, though the impact will depend on how rigorously different countries implement the measures.
- Technology and Industry: Access to dual-use components — those that could be used for civilian or military ends — becomes harder to source, affecting everything from power plants to medical devices.
Geopolitics: A Proxy in a Global Game
This is not just a regional story. It is a mirror reflecting global tensions: competing visions for how to prevent nuclear proliferation, the limits of multilateral institutions when great-power interests diverge, and the cruelty of policy when it collides with ordinary lives.
“The snapback demonstrates a key dilemma of modern diplomacy,” said an international relations scholar in London. “When instruments of global governance provide a path back to pressure, they also risk hardening positions and pushing actors into unilateral or clandestine choices.”
Indeed, the diplomatic rupture follows a violent chapter: exchanges of airstrikes earlier this year on Iranian facilities — attacks Tehran says killed more than 1,000 people in June — helped unravel trust. Israel and the United States have signalled that they reserve the right to use force in self-defence, and Israeli leaders have publicly called for urgent action to limit Iran’s capabilities.
What Comes Next — and What You Should Watch For
In a world threaded together by rapid information and fragile alliances, the next few months will be decisive. Here are the signals to watch:
- Implementation: Which countries will actually enforce the UN measures? Moscow’s public refusal to comply complicates the sanctions’ potency.
- Market Responses: Will global oil markets tighten or stabilise, and how will regional energy partners react?
- Diplomacy: Will negotiators return to the table with new ideas, or will military and economic pressures further polarise positions?
“Sanctions are a tool, not a destiny,” said a former diplomat who worked on non-proliferation. “But they are a blunt one, and the human costs are real. If we want durable security, we need strategies that build trust as much as they deter.”
Stand Back and Consider
What does the restoration of UN sanctions say about the world we are making? Are international institutions equipped to mediate between competing securities, or are they now stages for geopolitical theatre? And for the millions of people who shop at bazaars under awnings, who teach children in sunlit classrooms, who nurse relatives through chronic illness, what responsibility do policymakers have to shield the vulnerable?
Walking through Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, you can feel the endurance and the strain. A carpet merchant runs a hand across a pattern dyed in the deep blues of the Zagros — a small ritual of normality. “We survive,” he says. “We always find a way.”
But “finding a way” is not the same as flourishing. As the snapback takes hold, the world will watch whether pressure or partnership steers the next chapter. And each of us — whether policymaker, citizen or reader halfway around the world — will have to decide how much weight to place on coercion and how much on conversation.
How do you balance accountability and empathy when statecraft becomes a matter of life and livelihood? It is the question behind every headline and every quiet bargaining table, and it is one we cannot afford to ignore.
Israel’s crisis may define the nation for generations to come
Israel at the Fault Line: A Nation Remade by War, Fear and Fracture
Walk through the streets of a city that has not known normalcy for a year and you feel the tug of two stories at once: a stubborn, battered resilience and a quiet, growing exhaustion. In cafés where young Israelis used to debate music and politics over espresso, silence has crept into conversations. Grocery store shelves are full, but customers move faster, voice lower. This is not a simple mood swing; it is a structural shift in a society wrestling with a war that has already changed everything.
From the rubble-strewn neighborhoods of Gaza to the polished corridors of the United Nations, the conflict has pushed Israel into a new and uncomfortable international posture. Around 150 countries have now recognised a Palestinian state—a symbolic and diplomatic earthquake—and cultural, academic and sporting boycotts are multiplying. Economically, reputational damage is rippling outwards; culturally and emotionally, Israelis are increasingly isolated on the world stage.
Inside Israel: Politics, Polls and the Weight of the Hostages
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands at the epicenter of this domestic turmoil. His coalition’s tilt to the right and its decisions during the Gaza campaign have cleaved the country into competing camps. While a shock of unity followed the horror of 7 October, that fragile cohesion is fraying as war fatigue, moral quandaries and political calculation collide.
Recent polling paints the outlines of this fracture. The Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) reported that just 40% of the public currently trusts Netanyahu—a startling low given the security crises of the year, including a 12-day exchange of fire with Iran in June that most observers said united the public behind national defense aims. The IDI also found that roughly two-thirds of Israelis would back a deal that would free all hostages in return for an end to the war and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
At the same time, nearly half of Jewish Israelis supported the security cabinet’s August decision to expand operations in Gaza, “including taking and holding territory.” It is a contradictory portrait: a populace that both wants the hostages returned urgently and, in significant numbers, supports a harder military line.
Voices in the Street
“We are exhausted, but we are not broken,” said Leah, a 34-year-old nurse from Haifa, who declines to give her surname because of the political heat. “Every time there is a report about a new offensive, we feel it in our bones. We worry for the soldiers, and we worry about what comes after.”
“If the state says they can return, I’ll be happy,” offered Udi Geron, a relative of a man killed and abducted on 7 October. “But until I hear a clear plan to bring the hostages home, everything else is just noise.”
At a market in Beersheba, a settler named Dov, 47, was blunt: “We cannot afford to be weak. If we retreat, the rest will follow. Security comes before everything.”
Across the Green Line, in Gaza, the daily calculus is different but no less acute. “We live in ruins,” said Samira, a schoolteacher. “We want an end to the killing and to the siege. But many here also believe October 7 made the world look again at our lives.”
The Human Toll and the Hardening of Hearts
Numbers tell a part of the story and bluntly register the scale of suffering. Gaza health authorities estimate more than 65,000 people killed since the onset of the operation—an unfathomable figure that has ignited global calls for humanitarian corridors and ceasefires. On the Israeli side, the memory of October 7 and the unresolved fate of dozens of hostages continues to harden the national psyche.
Poll after poll shows that the possibility of coexistence is receding. In June, Pew Research found only 21% of Israelis believed peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state was possible—the lowest level since 2013. Many Israelis fear that any compromise will be met with further attacks; many Palestinians feel emboldened by renewed international attention and recognition.
Trust between the two communities has evaporated. A survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) showed that while support for October 7 among Gazans fell from 64% to 59% between last September and May, a majority still view the attack as having revived international focus on their cause. And 87% of Gazans surveyed did not accept that Hamas committed the most lurid atrocities shown on video—an indicator of the fracture in shared narratives.
Diplomacy, Deterrence and the New Realities
Strategic thinkers in Israel argue the country is experiencing a paradigm shift: deterrence once rested on overwhelming superiority to discourage attacks; now the argument goes, such superiority must be used proactively to defeat adversaries. Former security officials have openly argued that Israel must prioritize military aims even at the risk of international criticism.
That posture has diplomatic consequences. The Abraham Accords, once hailed as a tectonic shift in Middle East geopolitics, are being tested. Gulf states have warned that annexation in the West Bank would be a red line. Israel’s efforts to build an independent arms industry—from words such as a “Super Sparta” of self-sufficiency to plans unveiled in September to reduce dependence on U.S. weaponry—reflect both strategic ambition and a hedging against diplomatic strain.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s 21-point plan—shared with Arab leaders at the United Nations—tries to thread an improbable needle: it promises the release of hostages, a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and a post-war governing plan that would exclude Hamas and involve Arab security elements and Gulf-state funding for reconstruction. Gulf diplomats reportedly received the plan with guarded optimism—provided Israel refrains from West Bank annexation and steps up humanitarian aid.
What Comes Next?
The costs of continuing on the current path are visible and compounding: international isolation, a dented economy, rising global antisemitism reported in some countries, and the lingering trauma of the hostages’ families. Inside Israel, confidence that society can shoulder the strain of protracted war has declined sharply—from 40% in March to just 28% today.
So what should readers outside the region make of this? Can a country secure its citizens without becoming a pariah? Can the international system, already strained by competing alliances and strategic competition, mediate a just and durable solution?
“There is no easy exit,” observed Dr. Miriam Halpern, a Jerusalem-based analyst who has spent decades studying conflict resolution. “Any settlement will require trade-offs that will hurt someone. But the alternative—an indefinite war of attrition and international isolation—will corrode the state internally and externally.”
Questions to Carry Home
- How do democracies balance national survival with the moral and legal constraints of warfare?
- When international recognition of a Palestinian state rises to over a hundred nations, what practical legal and diplomatic obligations follow?
- And perhaps most humanly: how do families on both sides find dignity and closure amid unresolved losses?
There are no tidy answers. But for anyone trying to understand this deeply entangled crisis, the landscape is clear: Israel is at a crossroads. Its politics, its society, and its place in the world are being remade—not by a single battle, but by the accumulation of fear, policy choices, international reactions and the persistent human desire to see loved ones returned home.
As night falls over cities on both sides of the divide, the question lingers like the glow of distant fires: can humanity—that stubborn, complicated species—find a way back from the brink, or will the next chapter simply harden the lines even further?
Kremlin Abuzz at Prospect of a Trump-Putin Meeting
The Summit That Sparked a Kremlin Rally: How a Single Phone Call Became a Storyline
The midday news opener on Russia’s most-watched state channel felt...
Bolton Pleads Not Guilty in Alleged Improper Handling of Classified Documents
Outside the courthouse: a man in a dark blue suit and a country in uneasy quiet
The morning in Greenbelt, Maryland, felt ordinary — brisk,...
Putin and Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán Talked About Plans for Trump Summit
When Two Giants Whisper in Budapest's Shadow
There is a curious hush that befell parts of Budapest the morning the idea of a new summit...
Prince Andrew renounces Duke of York title amid controversy
When a Name Becomes a Weight: The Quiet Erosion of a Royal Title
On a blustery afternoon in London, the golden face of Buckingham Palace...
‘Everything turned to ash’: Gaza residents return to razed, smoldering homes
Back to Rubble: Walking Home in a City That Forgot How to Be a City
They come back on foot, or in the backs of...