Trump’s attempt to topple Zelenskyy through elections could be catastrophic
On February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a long-awaited meeting with US President Donald Trump in an attempt to persuade him to continue US support for Ukraine. The encounter was likely not what the Ukrainian head of state had expected. Trump and US Vice President JD Vance chastised Zelenskyy in front of TV cameras for being “disrespectful” and for refusing to embrace their initiative for a ceasefire with Russia. It is evident that Zelenskyy will not make a return to Washington during Trump’s presidency. It is also evident that US pressure on Ukraine will significantly escalate in the following weeks and months, as Trump presses Kyiv to make significant concessions to Russia in return for peace. Even before the showdown at the White House, the Trump administration was questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy and pushing for presidential elections to be held. Holding a rushed election with the sole purpose of eliminating the incumbent, however, could spell disaster for the country. Advertisement Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, approval ratings for Zelenskyy’s presidency were as low as 28 percent and 11 percent for his party. Russia’s full-scale invasion sent Ukrainians rallying behind the president and his popularity reached record highs. However, over the past two years, his approval ratings have been on a consistent decline. According to polls, trust in Zelenskyy fell from 54 percent in April 2024 to 49 percent in January – not as low as Trump has claimed, but a far cry from his 90 percent rating in May 2022. Multiple factors have contributed to Zelenskyy’s declining popularity, including rampant corruption under his administration and the growing fatigue from the ongoing war. The Ukrainian president – well aware of his vulnerability – has made clear that he is not comfortable with competition. For him, the stakes are high because if he were to lose a re-election bid, he could face prosecution for corruption or various forms of retribution from his rivals. The polls are already showing that if elections were to be held immediately, he would lose. A formidable challenger to Zelenskyy has already emerged: Valerii Zaluzhnyi, a four-star general who served as commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces until February 2024. Polls show that Zaluzhnyi – if he were to run in a presidential vote – would defeat Zelenskyy. Public trust in him is among the highest and stood at 72 percent in January. Although Zaluzhnyi was dismissed by the president on the heels of the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023, there have been speculations that his popularity in Ukraine may have also been a factor. The general was sent abroad to serve as the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom – a position he still occupies. Advertisement So far, Zaluzhnyi has not declared an intention to run, although there are no guarantees he would not change his mind. If he stays out, other military figures, such as Kyrylo Budanov, may step in. Budanov, Ukraine’s intelligence chief, has a public trust rating of 62 percent. He recently disappeared from the public eye after a year of high-profile media appearances. Rumours have spread that Zelenskyy’s office planned to remove him, resulting in his sudden retreat. But he may well reappear once the campaign begins. Boxing champion Oleksandr Usyk could become a potential dark horse. In a country where a former comedian became president, a victorious athlete doesn’t seem like an unlikely contender. Although he has not made any political ambitions public, he has started appearing in polls and his rating currently stands at 60 percent. Then there is former President Petro Poroshenko, who has low approval ratings, but remains a dangerous rival to Zelenskyy. Since 2019, more than 130 criminal cases have been launched against him – including one accusing him of treason for approving a coal-supplying scheme from the Russian-occupied Donbas region. Poroshenko is an outspoken critic of Zelenskyy and is not hiding his political ambitions. He has travelled to the US and met with Trump’s team. In February, when he tried to go to the Munich Security Conference, he was not allowed. He now faces state-imposed sanctions on “national security grounds”, which include an asset freeze. The message of the sanctions is clear: Poroshenko will be eliminated from the presidential race before it even begins. In this context of perceived political persecution, other potential challengers have not come forward, being too afraid to run. Advertisement There has been growing concern over Zelenskyy’s handling of opposition figures, but so far, no strong public rebuke has emerged from his allies. After the confrontation at the White House, European leaders expressed support for him. This has given Zelenskyy a temporary boost at home, but it is unclear how long it could hold. Apart from the bitter political rivalries and retribution, the Ukrainian political scene is also marked by continuing divisions within society. The war has intensified emotions and split the country right down the middle, creating a volatile situation. The ultranationalists not only hold sway among certain parts of the population but also are empowered as active participants in the war. There is also still a portion of society that leans pro-Russian and does not want the conflict to continue. If an election is imposed from abroad in this volatile situation, it could prove more catastrophic than Russia’s invasion or the loss of Ukraine’s industrial heartlands. The danger isn’t just that a third of the population would be unable to vote and the election’s legitimacy may be in question. The real threat is that the vote could ignite a fight of all against all before a single ballot is cast. An incumbent who fears losing a re-election bid and political rivals who are hellbent on regaining relevance may resort to exploiting societal divisions. The military and security agencies could be forced to act, which adds to a potentially explosive mix. If presidential elections can dangerously polarise societies at peace – as we have seen in the United States – they can do much worse in times of war. A rushed
India avalanche rescue operation ends as eighth and final body found
More than 50 workers submerged under snow and debris after an avalanche hit a construction camp in Uttarakhand state. Rescuers recovered the eighth and final body from the site of an avalanche in a remote area of northern India, the army has said, marking the end of a marathon operation in subzero temperatures. More than 50 workers were submerged under snow and debris after the avalanche hit a construction camp on Friday near Mana village on the border with Tibet in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand. Authorities had revised down the number of workers on site at the time of the avalanche from 55 to 54 after one worker, previously believed to be buried, was found to have safely made his way home before the avalanche hit. By Saturday, rescuers had managed to pull out 50 people, but four later succumbed to their injuries, according to an Indian army statement. By Sunday, rescue teams had recovered the remaining bodies, the army said, adding that they had used a drone-based detection system and a rescue dog to assist in its search operations. Many of those trapped were migrant labourers working on a highway expansion project covering a 50km (31-mile) stretch from Mana, the last Indian village before the China border, to Mana Pass. Advertisement They were living on site in steel containers considered stronger than tents and capable of withstanding harsh weather. As the ground beneath them shook, the container that construction worker Anil and his colleagues were in began to slide down. “At first we did not understand what was happening, but when we looked out of the window of the containers, we saw piles of snow all around,” Anil, 20, told the AFP news agency. He said that the roofs of the containers began bending inwards. “The way we were engulfed in snow, we had no hope of surviving,” he said, adding that being alive felt “like a dream”. His colleague Vipan Kumar thought “this was the end” when he found himself unable to move as he struggled for air under the thick layer of snow. “I heard a loud roar, like thunder … before I could react, everything went dark,” he told the Times of India newspaper. The ecologically fragile Himalayan region, increasingly affected by global warming, is prone to avalanches and flash floods. In 2021, nearly 100 people died in Uttarakhand when a huge chunk of a glacier fell into a river, triggering flash floods. Devastating monsoon floods and landslides in 2013 killed 6,000 people and led to calls for a review of development projects in the state. In 2022, an avalanche also killed 27 trainee mountaineers in Uttarakhand, while a glacier that burst in 2021 triggered a flash flood and left more than 200 people dead. Adblock test (Why?)
US firm Firefly achieves its first moon landing with Blue Ghost spacecraft
Firefly says it is the first private company to make a ‘fully successful’ soft landing on the moon. Firefly Aerospace, a United States-based private space company, has successfully landed its Blue Ghost spacecraft on the moon for a two-week research mission amid a race between a handful of private firms. The touchdown took place at 3:35am US East Coast time (08:35 GMT) on Sunday in the Mare Crisium region, a prominent lunar basin visible from Earth. Firefly becomes the second private firm to achieve a moon landing with the company declaring itself the first to make a “fully successful” soft landing. Houston-based Intuitive Machines had a lopsided hard landing last year with its Odysseus lunar lander, which came out mostly intact but many of its onboard instruments were damaged. The Firefly mission is part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services programme, which seeks to leverage private industry to support the agency’s return to the moon. Blue Ghost carried 10 scientific and technological payloads, including NASA instruments designed to study lunar dust, radiation and surface materials. Advertisement Key instruments on board will measure the moon’s internal heat flow and prevent lunar dust accumulation on equipment and include a retroreflector for laser-ranging experiments. The spacecraft was launched on board a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center on January 15. Firefly plans to follow up with two additional Blue Ghost missions in 2026 and 2028, both of which are expected to deliver more scientific payloads and support NASA’s long-term lunar objectives. Acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro said at Firefly’s landing event on Sunday that the moon remains part of the US goal to “dominate” space. The success underscores the growing role of private companies in space exploration as NASA and other agencies increasingly rely on commercial partners to achieve scientific and technological breakthroughs. A host of other countries are also advancing their own lunar efforts, including China with its robotic Chang’e programme and plans to put Chinese astronauts on the moon’s surface by 2030. Adblock test (Why?)
Trump did on live TV what other US presidents would just do in private
Psst. Over here. Over here. You want to hear a trade secret? The bulk of journalists who cover the so-called “halls of power” in Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, London, Paris and beyond prefer routine over spontaneity. You see, predictability is easy. It’s comforting because most capital cities are mundane places where boring is not only an agreeable fact on the ground, but also a prevailing state of mind. That is why the overwrought reaction to the lively dressing-down US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was so in keeping with the White House press corps’ stubborn fondness for the veneer of practised civility over the impulsive truth. Unlike so many other pundits and columnists who rushed instantly and almost universally onto the familiar cable news networks to express their disbelief and shock over the “embarrassing spectacle” of America’s tactless commander-in-chief “humiliating” his “wartime hero” guest, I was mesmerised by the remarkable scenes unfolding live on my computer screen. Advertisement Rather than watching an orchestrated, forgettable set piece featuring smiling foreign dignitaries and heads of state visiting an ever-so-polite president in the Oval Office, it was refreshing to witness a blatant exhibition of the crudeness, rudeness, and brutishness of power politics that usually occurs far, far away from the cameras and, hence, reporters and the public. They will be loath to admit it, but the sea of scribes who stood like mute mannequins while Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy traded rhetorical blows for several bruising rounds, expected another tame, pedestrian day at work like so many other tame, pedestrian days at work. They know the predictable role they play during these choreographed pantomimes. Step 1: Go to the Oval Office. Step 2: Record the foreign head of state saying nice and sweet stuff about the US president. Step 3: Record the US president saying nice and sweet stuff about the foreign head of state. Step 4: Report that the US president and the foreign head of state said nice and sweet stuff about each other. Step 5: Later, call sources who say that, in private, the US president and the foreign head of state did not say nice and sweet stuff about each other. Step 6: Report, quoting anonymous sources, that despite having said nice and sweet stuff about each other publicly, privately, truth be told, the US president and his grinning guest cannot stand one another. That was, in effect, the formulaic arc of much of the reporting after French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made their pilgrimages to Washington last week to massage and mollify Trump. Advertisement True to his unorthodox nature – to put it charitably – Trump and his clawing vice president – upended that traditional script, either by design or instinctively, with Zelenskyy. Reporters and pundits came away confused and disoriented. This is not supposed to happen the way it has happened, they moaned – disappointed, apparently, at having to act as journalists rather than stenographers. A lot of the hyperbolic outrage being directed at Trump is the product not so much of what he said to Zelenskyy – since his antipathy towards Ukraine and its president has been plain – but how and where he said it: in the Oval Office before TV cameras. That’s what America’s genteel chattering class considers so rank and appalling – Trump did his berating and bullying openly, when more discreet and “diplomatic” presidents do their berating and bullying behind closed doors. The glaring irony is that American networks and the personalities who populate them leverage broadcasting “live” to draw audiences tempted by the urgency of now and the prospect that, at any moment, real, not manufactured, drama and conflict might erupt. Newsworthy drama and conflict did erupt in the Oval Office on Friday, but instead of embracing it, those same networks and personalities recoiled from it and labelled it as unseemly and unbecoming of the office of the presidency and the United States itself. Here’s a bit of news for the yapping ostriches: Aside from lying with a pathological ease and ordering others to kill without a scintilla of regret or remorse, being rude, crude, and a brute is a job prerequisite of any US president – Democrat or Republican. Advertisement Trump is not the exception. He is the rule. The administration of pretty boy, Harvard-trained President John F Kennedy enlisted the Mafia to try to murder Cuba’s young and charismatic leader, Fidel Castro, and gave its tacit approval to a coup in early November 1963 that saw the overthrow of South Vietnam’s government and the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, was a six-foot, four-inch boor who physically assaulted much smaller public servants who angered him. In 1965, a livid Johnson summoned Canada’s diminutive prime minister, Lester Pearson, to Camp David for a stiff talking to after the Noble Peace Prize winner denounced the US bombing of North Vietnam. Johnson reportedly grabbed Pearson by the shirt collar, twisted it, and lifted the prime minister by the neck, shouting: “You pissed on my rug.” That same year, an enraged Johnson shoved then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve William Martin against a wall for having raised interest rates against the president’s wishes. “Boys are dying in Vietnam, and Bill Martin doesn’t care,” Johnson thundered. That avatar of presidential probity, Richard Nixon, ordered the CIA to block, thwart, undermine, and destabilise Chile’s democratically elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende. And Nixon’s obscene anti-Semitism makes Trump’s fiery remarks to Zelenskyy seem rather temperate, in comparison. He complained on tape that Washington “is full of Jews” and that “most Jews are disloyal”. Whether the wailing pundits and TV personalities are prepared to acknowledge it or not, Trump was right. The sensational Oval Office fireworks made for great television. Advertisement This time we were privy to the astonishing, history-making words and deeds of another “gangster” president in real-time, as it happened. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do
At least 37 people killed and 39 wounded as two buses collide in Bolivia
The crash happened on the route between the cities of Uyuni and Colchani, when one of the vehicles swerved into the oncoming lane. At least 37 people have been killed and dozens more injured in a crash involving two buses in the western Potosi region of Bolivia, police and local authorities have said. The accident happened on Saturday at 7am local time (11:00 GMT) on the route between the cities of Uyuni and Colchani, when one of the vehicles swerved into the oncoming lane. Uyuni is the gateway to the Salar de Uyuni, a major tourist attraction and the world’s largest salt flat at more than 10,000sq km (3,900sq miles). “As a result of this fatal accident we have 39 people injured in four hospitals in the town of Uyuni, and 37 people have lost their lives,” a spokesperson for the Departmental Police Command of Potosi told reporters. Police personnel are working to identify people who were killed and those who were injured and hospitalised, the spokesperson added. People inspect the wreckage of a bus involved in the collision [Bolivian Police/AFP] One of the buses was heading to Oruro, where one of the most important carnival celebrations in Latin America is currently taking place. Advertisement Police officers removed survivors from the steel wreckage, according to images shot by Radio Uyuni, which showed several bodies covered in blankets strewn across the high Andean flatlands. A police spokesperson said one of the two drivers, who both survived the crash, was spotted by passengers consuming alcohol. Bolivia’s mountainous, under-maintained and little-supervised roadways are some of the deadliest in the world, killing an average of 1,400 people every year. Adblock test (Why?)
Will the US withdraw its support for Ukraine?
A public meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy descended into a spat. A visit that Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelenskyy hoped would secure US support in the face of Russia’s invasion, instead ended in a very public argument. The meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House was supposed to be about signing over rights to some of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. Kyiv hoped that would keep US assistance coming, despite not containing any guarantees of security against Russian aggression. Instead, President Zelenskyy got a dressing down from Trump and his Vice President JD Vance, who accused the wartime leader of showing disrespect and ingratitude. Now Trump is threatening to pull support from Ukraine. What does this mean for the war in Ukraine? And will Washington force a settlement with Moscow? Presenter: James Bays Guests: Michael Bociurkiw – Global affairs analyst and senior fellow at Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center Scott Lucas – Professor of US and international politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin Glenn Diesen – Professor of international relations at the University of South-East Norway and associate editor of Russia in Global Affairs Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
ICC Champions Trophy 2025 – India vs New Zealand: Start time, teams, stream
Who: India vs New ZealandWhat: ICC Champions Trophy 2025Where: Dubai International Stadium, Dubai, United Arab EmiratesWhen: Sunday, March 2 at 1pm (09:00 GMT)Follow Al Jazeera’s live coverage. India and New Zealand booked their Champions Trophy semifinal spots early in the 50-over tournament and will clash on Sunday in Dubai, with the winner topping Group A. South Africa topped Group B and will face the loser of Sunday’s match, while Australia finished second in that group and will face the winner of the final match of the group stage. India will come into the match after a six-day game break since their victory against Pakistan. There will be only a day’s recovery between the last group match and the semifinal on Tuesday in Dubai. Indeed, a great deal of the talk heading into the match has been focused on injuries and player workloads. What is the India team news? India skipper Rohit Sharma and Mohammed Shami are fit and raring to go against New Zealand the team have said. In India’s previous win over archrivals Pakistan, Rohit and pace spearhead Shami left the field for a short period, briefly raising doubts about the fitness of the two players. Advertisement “There’s no real concerns about anyone missing games, as far as I know,” wicketkeeper-batsman KL Rahul told reporters before the New Zealand clash. Rahul said all the players have been to the gym and training and even if there were some niggles, there was nothing serious. Shami, 34, recently returned to international cricket from a long injury lay-off and claimed figures of 5-53 in India’s opening win over Bangladesh. But against Pakistan, he seemed to have some trouble with his ankle as he went off for some treatment only to return later and bowl, much to India’s relief. India’s captain Rohit Sharma, left, and Mohammed Shami, right, were the two main injury concerns before the New Zealand match [Francis Mascarenhas/Reuters] Rohit also left the ground with his deputy Shubman Gill leading the team briefly and TV commentators suggested the captain was troubled by a hamstring strain. Rohit returned and also batted in his usual opening slot to hand India a quick start in his 15-ball 20. Indian assistant coach Ryan ten Doeschate dismissed any concerns about Rohit’s fitness. “He’s all right. You can see he’s batting, he did a little bit of fielding earlier,” ten Doeschate said. “It’s an injury he’s had before, so he knows how to manage it really well. And he’s on top of it.” Shami has been India’s go-to bowler in the absence of pace ace Jasprit Bumrah, who failed to recover from a back injury and missed the eight-nation tournament. “I don’t think rest is an issue. It’s how you back the two games. If we bowl second, for Shami bowling 10 overs and to possibly do it again in 36 hours could mean a lot of workload,” said ten Doeschate. Advertisement “Rohit will have to manage that on the field to keep the guys fresh for the first semifinals.” What is the New Zealand team news? Stalwart top-order batsman Daryl Mitchell has declared himself fit to face India after missing the win over Bangladesh on Monday because of illness. “Obviously disappointing to miss the last game with being a bit crook,” Mitchell said. “It’s nice to be back with the group now and get out of the hotel room and to be involved in training and looking forward to the next match. “It’s another game of cricket that I’m just really excited to represent our country in, and it should be good fun come Sunday.” Rachin Ravindra, who was returning from a concussion, replaced Mitchell in the batting order against Bangladesh in Rawalpindi and scored a sparkling 112 as the Black Caps booked their spot in the knockout rounds. It was the opener’s fourth three-figure score at an ICC tournament – more than any other New Zealander. Coach Gary Stead is therefore presented with something of an embarrassment of riches in the batting department, even if he has suggested he might rest players carrying niggles for the India match. Rachin Ravindra, left, has scored more centuries at ICC events than any other New Zealander [Akhtar Soomro/Reuters] Where could the game be won for India or New Zealand? The pitch in Dubai has been sluggish with spinners playing a part. India’s Kuldeep Yadav claimed three wickets in the win over Pakistan. New Zealand’s spin force has also shone and in their previous win over Bangladesh in Rawalpindi, off-spinner Michael Bracewell returned figures of 4-26. Advertisement Ten Doeschate, a former Netherlands and Essex all-rounder, said the Sunday clash could turn out to be a battle of spinners. “Yeah, I think so. And they’ll have four spinners as well. So, it could be a contest of spin,” said ten Doeschate. “I think coming into the competition, we weren’t expecting such an over-reliance in spin, but the guys have bowled nicely and the pitch has helped a little bit.” What chance to New Zealand have of upsetting India in Dubai? Returning New Zealand batter, Mitchell, said the fact that a variety of different batters were making decisive interventions in matches was a definite plus. “Something that we pride ourselves on is that when the situation dictates, you do your job for the team,” he said. “I’m sure another set of hands will stick their hands up over the next few games and hopefully, help us win games.” Why are India not playing their matches in Pakistan? All of India’s matches are being played in UAE instead of Pakistan, the host nation of the 2025 edition, including a potential final. The move came after the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) reached an agreement with the International Cricket Council (ICC) and Pakistan, that both nations would play all ICC events hosted in either country to be played at neutral venues until 2027. Spirits are high in the New Zealand camp ahead of their #ChampionsTrophy clash against India in
ICC Champions Trophy 2025: South Africa’s win ends Afghanistan hopes
South Africa beat England by seven wickets in Lahore to reach Champions Trophy semifinals while eliminating Afghanistan. Rassie van der Dussen scored 72 not out off 87 balls to lead South Africa into the semifinals of the Champions Trophy by beating bottom-of-the-table England by seven wickets. Van der Dussen’s half-century highlighted South Africa’s clinical performance on Saturday as it finished atop Group B ahead of Australia in second and Afghanistan, who are now eliminated, in third. The Proteas finished with 181-3 in 29.1 overs in reply to England’s hapless effort of 179 all out (38.2 overs). This was after England – already ousted from the tournament after back-to-back losses – had won the toss and opted to bat. Rassie van der Dussen of South Africa bats during the ICC Champions Trophy 2025 match in Karachi [Sameer Ali/Getty Images] Marco Jansen picked 3-39 in seven overs while Wiaan Mulder took 3-25 in 7.2 overs as England’s batting looked disinterested. England had previously lost to Australia and Afghanistan and thus finished winless after three games, marking a dismal end to Jos Buttler’s run as skipper. Buttler announced on Friday that he would step down after England’s surprising exit as well as their past failures in the 2024 T20 World Cup and the 2023 Cricket World Cup. Australia are the second team to qualify from Group B and will face either India or New Zealand after those two Group A teams battle for the top spot in Dubai on Sunday. Advertisement Afghanistan had an outside hope of progressing in second spot with Australia winning the group if England had beaten the Proteas by 200 runs or more. South Africa’s Marco Jansen, centre, claimed the first three England wickets to fall [Akhtar Soomro/Reuters] England’s innings suffered early blows against Jansen. Phil Salt was out caught for eight, and then Jamie Smith was caught for a three-ball duck. It became 37-3 when Ben Duckett returned a catch to Jansen for 24 off 21 balls. “These were good conditions from a batting point of view, and the boys worked very hard,” said Jansen, who was named player of the match. “I used my options well and hit my lengths.” Joe Root top-scored with 37 off 44 balls and made an effort to stabilise the innings. He added 62 off 61 balls with Harry Brook (19). Left-arm spinner Keshav Maharaj (2-35) got the breakthrough with Jansen taking a nice catch at midwicket to dismiss Brook. Thereafter, England collapsed again. Mulder bowled Root in the 18th over, and while Buttler held one end with 21 off 43 balls, regular wickets meant that the English innings never took flight. Jofra Archer scored 25 off 31 balls with four fours. Jos Buttler looks dejected as he leaves the field after batting for the last time as England captain [Sameer Ali/Getty Images] England lost its last seven wickets for 80 runs, finishing with a below-par score. “It was a really disappointing performance, and we were short of our mark today,” Buttler said after England’s seventh straight ODI defeat. “It was a decent surface, and Duckett got us into a nice position, but we couldn’t take advantage of that. As a whole group, we are not getting results, and that takes away the confidence from us.” Chasing a paltry total, South Africa’s start wasn’t too good either. Archer bowled makeshift opener Tristan Stubbs for a five-ball duck and then bowled Ryan Rickelton (27) later on as well. Advertisement It was 47-2 when van der Dussen and Heinrich Klaasen came together, and they put on 127 runs off 122 balls for the third wicket. Van der Dussen reached 50 off 72 balls, and his knock for the day included six fours and three sixes overall. Stand-in skipper Aiden Markram did not bat after he sustained a hamstring injury while fielding. Klaasen finished with 64 off 56 balls with 11 fours before he was out caught off Adil Rashid (1-37) near the finish line. Adblock test (Why?)
Ukrainians fear losing US support as Trump-Zelenskyy clash shocks world
A dramatic spat between the US and Ukrainian leaders raises concerns about continued US aid for Ukraine’s war effort. Uncertain and wary, Ukrainians have voiced their concerns over the possibility of the United States withdrawing its support for the war-torn country following a dramatic shouting match at the Oval Office between the presidents of the US and Ukraine. A global audience watched in shock as a news conference on Friday between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump shattered already fragile US-Ukrainian relationships. The two leaders and US Vice President JD Vance clashed over differing visions on how to end the three-year-old conflict with the Ukrainian president seeking security guarantees from a Trump administration that has made a U-turn in decades-long US foreign policy by aligning with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s perspective. Ukrainians, many of them hardened by three years of war, rallied around Zelenskyy but also expressed dismay about the future of US backing for Kyiv’s war effort as larger and better-equipped Russian forces march across swaths of the east. “I doubt that we could stand without the American help. They have helped us a lot with weapons and money. Maybe Europe will help us,” Kyiv resident Liudmyla Stetsevych, 47, told the Reuters news agency. Advertisement “Trump and Putin are dividing up the world – that’s what I would say. I don’t know what will come of it,” Other Ukrainians also expressed hope that Ukraine’s allies in Europe would boost political and military support if the US dialled back its own. “Many European countries voiced their support for Ukraine, we hope they will step up and increase aid for Ukraine, especially military equipment and ammunition,” Alina Zhaivoronko, from Kyiv, told Reuters. The European Union, the United Kingdom and Norway have overtaken the US in terms of cumulative direct military and non-military aid to Ukraine as they have provided and pledged more than $204bn in aid compared with the US’s $183bn, according to the Institute for the War Study. Still, the US provides key air defence weaponry and much-needed intelligence to Ukrainian troops. Many in Kyiv fear that without Washington’s support, prospects for Ukraine’s war effort are bleak. Zhaivoronko said Ukrainians are “very thankful” to the US “for the help we have received all this time and keep receiving now. But our dignity, our honour, should stand above everything. “It was an unpleasant shock, like we were in a cold shower. It was a very unexpected format of discussion. But there are two sides to this. Diplomatically, President Zelenskyy should have kept to the norms and rules. But on the other side, it was a provocation,” she said. Nataliia Serhiienko, 67, a retiree in Kyiv, said she thinks Ukrainians approve of their president’s performance in Washington, “because Zelenskyy fought like a lion”. Advertisement “They had a heated meeting, a very heated conversation,” she told The Associated Press. But Zelenskyy “was defending Ukraine’s interests”. At his meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy repeatedly demanded that any deal with the US must include concrete security guarantees for Ukraine should Putin breach a ceasefire agreement. In the past, the Ukrainian president said that Moscow violated truce deals 25 times, including during Trump’s first term. But following the spat in front of cameras, Zelenskyy left the White House abruptly without signing a much-touted minerals deal. He later declined to apologise for the blowup, saying he regrets the public spat and wanted Trump to be more on Ukraine’s side. “The Americans don’t know the real situation, what’s going on here,” Ella Kazantseva, 54, told Reuters across from a sea of flags in central Kyiv commemorating Ukraine’s war dead. “They don’t understand. Everything is beautiful for them.” Adblock test (Why?)
What are the implications of the PKK leader’s call to disband?
The jailed founder and leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, calls on the group to disband. That follows four decades of fighting with Turkiye, costing 40,000 lives. So, why is this coming now and what impact could it have on Turkiye – and the region? Presenter: Nick Clark Guests: Omer Ozkizilcik – Non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Program and director of Turkish studies at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies HA Hellyer – Senior fellow in geopolitics, international security and Middle East studies at the Royal United Services Institute, a defence and security think tank Mohammed Salih – Non-resident senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Kurdish affairs specialist Adblock test (Why?)