The EU and UK want the next US presidential administration to back a conflict with Russia, Stevan Gajic has said
Ukraine and its European backers are hoping to wait out US President Donald Trump’s term in office to pursue a war with Russia with the support of his successor, according to a professor at the Institute of European Studies in Belgrade, Stevan Gajic.
Trump has expressed frustration with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, accusing him of obstructing peace negotiations with Russia. Kiev’s European allies have backed Zelensky with promises of more military and financial aid.
Zelensky, along with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, view the Trump administration “as a natural disaster that will eventually pass and they can get back to business,” Gajic told RT on Friday.
“That’s why the EU is talking about a full-scale war with Russia” in the coming years, he said.
Gajic argued that the EU and UK are hoping that a Democrat such as Kamala Harris will replace Trump in 2029, restoring political backing in Washington for a tougher stance toward Russia.
Beijing is making a bold bid to shape how the world thinks about war, peace, and power in the decades ahead
China’s newly released white paper on arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation comes at a moment of deep strategic flux. The document arrives not just as a technical update on policy, but as a political gesture – an attempt to shape the emerging world order at a time when multipolarity is no longer theoretical and US-China rivalry increasingly defines the global landscape. Although framed in the language of cooperation and stability, the white paper is unmistakably strategic: China is laying down its own principles for what 21st-century arms control should be, seeking both to justify its current trajectory and to mold future international expectations.
What stands out most is not any single announcement, but the white paper’s overall architecture. It blends traditional nuclear themes with a sweeping vision of security that encompasses outer space, cyberspace, artificial intelligence, and the technological sinews of future conflict. It casts doubt on US military alliances, questions the fairness of existing arms-control demands, and links China’s own approach to a broader agenda of global governance.
For years, Washington has pressed Beijing to join trilateral arms-control talks with the US and Russia, arguing that China’s expanding capabilities will destabilize strategic balances unless brought under some form of verifiable constraint. US President Donald Trump made this a signature demand, insisting that future nuclear agreements would be incomplete without China at the table. Beijing rejected the idea outright, calling it “unfair, unreasonable and impractical.” That refrain echoes unmistakably in the new white paper.
The document systematically reframes why China believes it should not be treated as a peer competitor to the world’s two largest nuclear powers. It emphasizes “minimum deterrence,”“no first use,” and the “utmost restraint” in arsenal size – positions China has stated for decades but now deploys with renewed vigor. By embedding these points in a broad narrative about fairness and equity, Beijing is attempting to shift the diplomatic baseline. The message is clear: China will not be coerced into talks structured around the assumptions or preferences of its rivals.
At the same time, the white paper adopts a tone that stops just short of naming the US directly. Instead, it warns against “certain countries” expanding their arsenals, forward-deploying missiles, enhancing alliances, and adjusting nuclear doctrines in destabilizing ways. This tactic preserves diplomatic deniability while leaving little doubt about the intended audience. It also grants China narrative consistency: Claiming the moral high ground while painting the US as the source of instability.
Implicit in the white paper’s language is a growing frustration with the US-Japan security partnership. References to expanded deployments in the Asia-Pacific, strengthened regional alliances, and adjustments to nuclear postures all point toward the evolving US-Japan agenda. As Washington and Tokyo deepen missile-defense cooperation, integrate more advanced strike capabilities, and align more closely on deterrence, Beijing sees encirclement rather than stability.
To a global audience, China’s framing serves two purposes. First, it uses history – subtly invoking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and Japanese aggression – to position itself as a guardian of hard-earned peace and post-war order. Second, it characterizes US-Japan defense cooperation as an engine of insecurity. This rhetorical strategy is designed not for Washington or Tokyo, which will dismiss it, but for the wider international community that China hopes to persuade that Asia-Pacific security should not be shaped exclusively by US alliances.
China’s nuclear section is carefully calibrated. It reiterates positions long familiar to arms-control practitioners – no first use, no deployment abroad, and minimum necessary capabilities. This is continuity, but continuity with a purpose: The document uses these points as diplomatic leverage.
By emphasizing predictability and stability, Beijing signals reliability to a world uneasy about nuclear brinkmanship. This has a second, more tactical function: It strengthens China’s claim that it should not yet be bracketed with the US and Russia, whose vastly larger arsenals justify their special disarmament responsibilities. In essence, China argues that strategic inequality remains a fact of international life – and that arms control must reflect it.
There is, of course, another layer to this argument. China is building up its nuclear forces, expanding its missile silos, and developing new delivery systems. Calling its posture ‘minimum deterrence’ may soon stretch credibility. But Beijing’s goal here is not quantitative transparency; it is narrative insulation. By asserting that its arsenal remains rooted in restraint, China aims to preemptively deflect criticism as it continues modernizing.
Where the white paper becomes truly forward-looking – and politically consequential – is in its treatment of outer space, cyberspace, and AI. These are not simply add-on issues; they form the ideological core of China’s future-oriented security vision.
Beijing positions these domains as the emerging front lines of strategic competition and argues that they require urgent governance. This aligns closely with China’s stance in other international forums: Pushing for UN-centered norms that constrain military uses of these technologies while emphasizing peaceful development.
The motivations run deeper than altruism. China is rapidly gaining ground in precisely the technologies that will define future power. By advocating early for robust governance frameworks, it seeks to influence the rule-making process before the US and its allies consolidate dominance.
This is one of the paper’s clearest signals: China intends to play a lead role in defining the rules of next-generation warfare. It sees emerging technologies not merely as tools, but as arenas where political power is negotiated.
One of the most significant themes woven through the white paper is China’s aspiration to become not just a participant in global governance, but a shaper of it. The document repeatedly stresses fairness, inclusivity, and the role of the UN – language targeted at Global South countries that are often excluded from Western-designed security architecture.
By positioning itself as the champion of ‘indivisible security’, China is courting the Global South, suggesting that Western arms-control regimes privilege the strong and constrain the weak. The strategy is clear: Build normative alliances that strengthen Beijing’s legitimacy as a global rule-maker.
China’s new white paper is not a passive policy document. It is a strategic declaration: An attempt to reframe arms control on terms that reflect China’s interests, ambitions, and worldview. It pushes back against US expectations, challenges alliance-based security, promotes a UN-centric governance model, and stakes a claim in emerging technological domains.
Whether the world accepts this framing is another question. Washington and Tokyo will see self-serving narrative rather than restraint. Many developing countries may see a partner resisting Western dominance. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will confront a growing reality: The future of arms control will no longer be negotiated solely in Washington and Moscow, but in a broader geopolitical arena where China is increasingly confident, assertive, and ready to lead.
The Russian central bank has made the first move in what is likely to be a long game of legal chess
On Friday, Russia’s central bank announced it is filing a lawsuit in a Moscow Arbitration Court against Belgian-based clearinghouse Euroclear, the custodian of around €185 billion ($220 billion) in frozen Russian assets.
The announcement was made in a brief press release with no commentary. But the timing is no accident. The move comes as the EU’s contentious plan to tap the assets for a massive zero-interest loan to Ukraine is headed for some sort of denouement.
The move by the central bank – a mere legal step with no accompanying fanfare – is typical for Moscow, which tends not to front-run complicated policy endeavors over social media or through provocative public statements. Russian officials have so far also tended to hew to bland statements.
“We [the government], including the central bank, are doing everything to protect our assets,” Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak told RT. “Illegal confiscations are absolutely unacceptable.”
While Western observers – accustomed to the acrimonious and very public nature of policy implementation in their own countries – may be puzzled by Russian officials’ reluctance to spell out the potential implications, the signal is clear.
Russia has now moved to the realm of action with regard to protecting its interests. The threat of Russian retaliation has hung over the entire EU-led asset-theft episode like the Sword of Damocles, but now an opening salvo has been fired.
At face value, of course, a lawsuit against Euroclear in Moscow means little: the Russian central bank will almost certainly win the suit, and Euroclear will probably not even mount a defense in a Russian jurisdiction. Russia’s legal case is widely seen as strong even disregarding the home-field advantage.
For both Euroclear and the EU, the risk is clearly far greater – but more amorphous – than whatever amount they could be on the hook for in light of a potential Russian court ruling. If Russia’s legal case spills into other jurisdictions, messy and protracted litigation could be extremely damaging for the company, not to mention for the EU’s reputation globally and its investment climate.
Many advocates of the seizure plan rightly point out that Russia could hardly be expected to win a lawsuit in an EU jurisdiction. But the battleground is elsewhere.
If Russia is able to secure an injunction in a neutral country where Euroclear operates, it could create logistical difficulties and tremendous reputational risks for Europe.
Euroclear, by its own admission, still holds client assets amounting to around €16 billion in Russia. These funds are already frozen, but a worse fate could await them if Russia were to retaliate. Friday’s announcement of a lawsuit made no mention of those funds and whether further action could be taken with regard to them. But the announcement didn’t need to: the implication is clear.
Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain has also made reference to those funds, admitting that she fears that Russia will move against them. She has generally been outspoken in her opposition to the loan scheme and even warned that her company could face bankruptcy if sanctions against Russia are lifted, but Europe has already allocated the money elsewhere. Of course, given Euroclear’s central role in the financial system, the EU would be forced to step in.
It is true the EU has invoked an emergency clause – Article 122 – which keeps the Russian funds immobilized indefinitely and hedges against a sudden removal of sanctions.
But this hardly alleviates the risk that a broad agreement to end the war won’t facilitate a lifting of the freeze on the Russian assets, even if the funds being returned to their rightful owner may not be straightforward (the US has proposed allowing American companies to tap the funds, for example).
For both Euroclear and the EU, this becomes much more than a question of tallying numbers on spreadsheets. A clearinghouse is not a physical asset that can withstand poor management and remain intact to be passed on to new owners. It lives by the trust investors place in it to be a reliable custodian of their assets. History has shown how quickly financial institutions can find themselves in peril once that trust is broken.
Russia’s lawsuit in Moscow is hardly a decisive move, but it has pushed matters into a very uncomfortable realm for those eyeing Russia’s funds.
An editor at the newspaper reportedly said it was “truly astonishing” the product was launched at all
The Washington Post’s new AI-based personalized podcasts presented subscribers with invented quotes and factual errors, Semafor reported on Thursday citing internal correspondence at the US newspaper.
Rolled out earlier this week, the feature offers mobile app users AI-generated podcasts that automatically summarize and narrate selected news stories, drawing on the newspaper’s written articles.
Within 48 hours of the product launch, WaPo employees began flagging multiple problems, including fabricated quotations, wrongly attributed statements, and incorrect factual details.
”It is truly astonishing that this was allowed to go forward at all,” one WaPo editor reportedly said in an internal message. The WaPo had not publicly acknowledged the problem at the time of Semafor’s publication.
The reported errors come amid heightened scrutiny of US media credibility. Late last month, the White House launched a media bias tracker on its official website, aimed at publicly listing news articles and outlets the administration considers biased or inaccurate. The WaPo features prominently on the site alongside outlets such as CNN, CBS, and Politico.
The Washington Post is regarded as one of the leading US national newspapers, alongside The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. It has been owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos since 2013. Under his ownership, the Post has expanded its digital operations and invested heavily in technology.
The issues surrounding the WaPo’s AI-generated podcasts also come as other major media outlets move to introduce similar technologies. Companies including Yahoo and Business Insider have recently announced or expanded AI-driven tools designed to summarize articles, part of a broader push across the media industry to use artificial intelligence to cut costs, speed up production, and personalize content for readers.
The episode highlights broader concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in journalism, where automated systems have repeatedly produced errors, so-called hallucinations, and misleading content. Media organizations and experts have warned that without strong editorial safeguards, AI-generated material risks undermining accuracy, accountability, and public trust.
The Russian and Turkish presidents have discussed cooperation, regional matters, and key international issues in Turkmenistan
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, discussed cooperation, regional matters, and key international issues in Turkmenistan on Friday, the Kremlin has said.
The meeting took place on the sidelines of the Peace and Trust: Unity of Goals for a Sustainable Future International Forum and lasted around 40 minutes.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described the talks as positive, saying relations between the two countries continue to develop across all areas.
“The multi-faceted and diversified nature of our relations, especially in the trade and economic sphere, makes it possible to cope with difficulties at the international level and with pressure from third countries,” Peskov told reporters.
He noted that major joint projects remain on the agenda, with priority given to the continued construction of Türkiye’s Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, the country’s first. Ankara expects the facility to be commissioned on time and Russia’s Rosatom is capable of meeting all its obligations, Peskov said.
The leaders also exchanged views on the Ukraine conflict. According to Turkish media reports, Ankara is eager to host another round of talks to break the deadlock over peace negotiations.
Putin and Erdogan also discussed what Peskov called European efforts to stage a “grandiose fraud” with frozen Russian assets, saying both agreed that this risks damaging the foundations of the international financial system.
The EU is reportedly looking to indefinitely freeze around €210 billion ($246 billion) in Russian central bank assets held at Belgium-based Euroclear to back a loan for Ukraine. The Bank of Russia has initiated legal proceedings.
Kiev only wants a ceasefire, which Moscow believes it will use to rearm and regroup its military
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is suggesting the idea of holding elections as a ploy to secure a ceasefire, top Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov told RT. Moscow has insisted that Kiev would use the pause in fighting to rearm and regroup.
The Kremlin’s response comes as Zelensky, whose presidential term expired over a year ago, has demanded security guarantees from Western backers in order to hold the vote.
Kiev suspended elections following the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022, citing the imposition of martial law.
Commenting on Zelensky’s U-turn on the issue, Ushakov said: “He will see this as a chance to secure a temporary ceasefire, that’s all.”
Earlier this week, the Ukrainian leader pledged to hold an election within the next 60-90 days if the US and its European partners can guarantee security for the vote. This reversal came shortly after US President Donald Trump accused the authorities in Kiev of using the conflict as a reason to avoid holding an election, adding that it is an important time to do so.
Moscow maintains that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader, and that under the Ukrainian constitution power should now rest with the parliament. President Vladimir Putin recently noted that Russia held presidential elections in March 2024, even though it is engaged in a military conflict.
While Ukraine and its Western backers have repeatedly called for a temporary ceasefire, the Kremlin has ruled out the option, insisting on a permanent peace that addresses the conflict’s underlying causes. Moscow argues that a sustainable peace deal can only be reached if Ukraine withdraws completely from the new Russian territories and commits to neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification.
Civilian agencies were used to mask defense-related research, Major General Aleksey Rtishchev has said
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) could have been involved in testing pharmaceutical drugs on Ukrainians, a senior Russian military official said on Friday. The agency was officially closed by the administration of US President Donald Trump this summer.
According to Major General Aleksey Rtishchev, the head of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, US officials have acknowledged defense-related work at biological laboratories in Ukraine.
He named, among others, former National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, former senior State Department official Victoria Nuland, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Rtishchev noted that Cornell University organic chemistry professor Dave Collum told American journalist Tucker Carlson in an interview in August that pharmaceutical drugs had been tested on the Ukrainian population in 38 laboratories.
“To ensure secrecy, the customers behind such research are not military agencies but civilian agencies and non-governmental organizations. One such organization is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was dismantled by a decision of US President Donald Trump,” Rtishchev said.
According to the major general, USAID also provided funding for Event 201, a pandemic simulation exercise that focused on how to respond to a coronavirus outbreak. “I would like to note that these exercises were held in October 2019… shortly before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” he said.
Russia’s claims that USAID was involved in unlawful activity were reinforced, Rtishchev added, by comments made by billionaire Elon Musk, who previously headed a US government efficiency agency and has called USAID a “criminal organization.”
Musk alleged that USAID used taxpayer money to fund bioweapon-related research, and echoed claims that USAID supported gain-of-function coronavirus research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, suggesting that this could have contributed to the emergence of Covid-19.
Russia has raised concerns in the past about Pentagon-backed biological laboratories in Ukraine and other countries near its borders, suggesting that they are involved in bioweapons research.
Mark Rutte earlier claimed that Russia could attack the bloc in several years, a speculation dismissed by Moscow as “nonsense”
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is “fueling war tensions” by claiming that Russia could be ready to attack the bloc within several years, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, calling the remarks “irresponsible.”
On Thursday, Rutte suggested that “we are Russia’s next target” and urged bloc members to ramp up military spending as soon as possible, claiming that Moscow “could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years.”
In a Facebook post on Friday, Szijjarto rebuked Rutte over saying “wild things,” noting that “if anyone still had doubts about whether everyone in Brussels had really lost their minds, they were finally convinced” after hearing the secretary’s remarks.
Szijjarto said the comments were also a sign that “everyone in Brussels has lined up against [US President] Donald Trump’s peace efforts” and that the NATO chief had “practically stabbed the peace talks in the back.”
“We, Hungarians, as members of NATO, reject the Secretary General’s words! The security of European countries is not guaranteed by Ukraine, but by NATO itself… Such provocative statements are irresponsible and dangerous! We call on Mark Rutte to stop fueling war tensions!!!”
Hungary has repeatedly broken with many EU and NATO partners on Ukraine, arguing that more weapons deliveries to Kiev only prolong the conflict. Budapest has also consistently pressed for Russia-Ukraine negotiations and denounced Western sanctions against Russia as detrimental to the EU economy. It has also opposed EU plans to use the frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, calling them illegal.
Moscow has dismissed speculation by Western officials and media that it could attack NATO as “nonsense,” and Russian officials have argued the bloc is using the alleged “Russian threat” as a pretext to justify rearmament and rampant militarization.
The modern world is changing rapidly, and agriculture is evolving with it. Today, the industry needs a new type of specialist – one capable of working within the ESG framework, understanding the principles of sustainable development, using eco-friendly technologies, and implementing innovations.
Russian universities are already offering educational programs that prepare such professionals. Among them are Stavropol State Agrarian University and the Agrarian-Technological Institute of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN), where students can pursue in-demand specialties ranging from agronomy, ecology, and veterinary science to biotechnology and engineering.
Students learn not only in classrooms but also in real-world settings – fields, farms, and enterprises. They operate modern machinery and equipment, perform veterinary check-ups and animal care, test agricultural technologies, and analyze soil conditions – turning theory into practice.
Russian agricultural science seeks effective solutions, works with both classical and molecular breeding, and develops environmentally friendly technologies. University laboratories actively conduct research: creating new plant varieties, studying soil microorganisms, and advancing biotechnological methods.
Many students receive job offers even during their internships, as enterprises are eager to recruit young talents before graduation.
The knowledge gained in Russia is in demand worldwide: it equips specialists to tackle key challenges, from food security to climate change. Graduates can develop agriculture in their home countries, launch their own agritech startups, or build a career in Russia.
new RTMaterial(‘EN’, ‘body > div.layout > div.layout__wrapper > div.layout__content > div > section > div.Grid-block.Grid-is2to3-xs_is1to1 > div:nth-child(1) > div’, [‘RU’]);
Certain jabs can cause immune cells to attack the body, leading to myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young men, scientists say
Certain Covid-19 vaccines can trigger immune responses that may inflame heart tissue and lead to potentially fatal complications in rare cases, with young men being especially susceptible, according to a new study.
The paper, authored by Stanford University researchers and published in the Science Translational Medicine journal, examined why some patients developed myocarditis or pericarditis after receiving mRNA jabs such as those produced by Pfizer and Moderna.
Researchers found that immune cells can, in some cases, recognize the foreign RNA delivered by the vaccines and mount a strong response. In rare instances, this response has led to the release of large amounts of cytokines – immune-signaling proteins that can damage heart cells.
Vaccine-associated myocarditis has occurred in about one in 140,000 people after a first dose and around one in 32,000 after a second dose, according to figures cited by The Telegraph, with incidence peaking among males aged 30 or younger.
Symptoms have included chest pain, shortness of breath, fever and palpitations, typically appearing within days of vaccination. Most patients have recovered quickly, although hospitalization and deaths have been reported in rare cases.
The findings come as the US Food and Drug Administration reportedly intends to place a “black box” warning, the agency’s most serious safety label, on Covid-19 vaccines, according to CNN. The warning would alert consumers to risks such as myocarditis and pericarditis, although the plan has not been finalized.
Covid-19 vaccines were developed and authorized rapidly after the World Health Organization declared a coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 and were later mandated in many countries. The rollout proved controversial, with critics claiming the jabs were poorly tested and that side effects posed greater risks than the virus itself.
However, scientists and regulators have maintained that Covid-19 infection carries a greater overall risk of serious illness and long-term complications than vaccination, and have stressed that the benefits of immunization outweigh the short-term risks of rare heart-related side effects.
