Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Why Canada is seeing its biggest military recruitment surge in 30 years

    Why Canada is seeing its biggest military recruitment surge in 30 years

    For generations, Canada has been widely regarded as a global underperformer when it comes to defence investment. Just two years ago, recruitment shortfalls grew so severe that a former Canadian defence minister issued a stark warning: the country’s armed forces were caught in an irreversible “death spiral.”

    Today, that narrative is shifting dramatically. The Canadian Armed Forces are now expanding at a pace unmatched in 30 years, posting the largest annual intake of new recruits in three decades, a turnaround that could finally reverse the chronic personnel shortages that have hobbled the military for generations. This surge over the past two years has unfolded against a backdrop of rising global geopolitical tension, with major armed conflicts raging across multiple regions and widespread uncertainty reshaping security calculations around the world. It also comes as the Canadian government has committed tens of billions in new military spending after decades of falling short of its mandatory NATO defence spending obligations.

    This recruitment boom also aligns with a notable uptick in Canadian nationalist sentiment, a shift triggered after former U.S. President Donald Trump’s provocative comment labeling Canada the “51st state” — a remark widely interpreted as a threat to Canadian sovereignty from its closest and most powerful neighbor. According to Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, a defense researcher at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, while a so-called “Trump effect” likely contributed to rising enlistment, the spike in military applications actually began in 2022, coinciding directly with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    “When people recognize that the world is no longer as secure as they once believed, and that their own country could face risk, we consistently see more people step forward to join the military,” Duval-Lantoine explained.

    Global instability is far from the only factor driving this surge. Canada’s persistently high youth unemployment rate, which hovered near 14% in March this year, paired with new promises of job security and substantial pay raises following Prime Minister Mark Carney’s announcement of the largest military pay increase in a generation, have also drawn more young people to enlist, Duval-Lantoine added. Since taking office 12 months ago, Carney has centered military expansion and modernization as a core priority of his administration, rolling out what he describes as an “ambitious” roadmap to rapidly grow and upgrade the Canadian Armed Forces.

    In March of this year, Carney announced that Canada had officially hit the NATO target of devoting 2% of its gross domestic product to defence — a milestone the country had not reached since the late 1980s. This year’s defence spending totals more than C$63 billion ($46 billion), and Carney has also committed Canada to the NATO alliance’s new pledge to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Canada hit the 2% target through a combination of across-the-board salary increases for service members, pledges to purchase new advanced military equipment, upgrades to existing domestic bases, and new infrastructure investments in the Canadian Arctic to strengthen sovereignty claims.

    Even with this surge in new recruits, however, defence analysts caution that the Canadian military still lags far behind many of its key NATO allies, and it will take years for new funding to translate into meaningful operational improvements. Richard Shimooka, a senior defence fellow at the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute public policy think tank, noted that the Canadian Armed Forces currently only have the capacity to deploy a few thousand active soldiers at any given time, alongside a very limited fleet of operational fighter jets. For context, the United Kingdom’s military can deploy 10,000 troops on short notice when required, he said.

    “The Canadian Armed Forces are starting from a very low point right now, and it will take between five and 10 years before we see a real, tangible improvement in operational capability,” Shimooka said. A core underlying reason for this slow pace of progress, he argued, is Canada’s decades-long overreliance on the United States — its southern neighbor and the world’s dominant military power — for collective defence.

    Successive U.S. presidential administrations and senior officials have repeatedly pressured Canada to ramp up defence spending, and critics have long labeled Canada a military “freeloader” that benefits from U.S. security guarantees without contributing its fair share. In 2024, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson publicly accused Canada of “riding on America’s coattails” when it came to defence. Last year, Trump name-checked Canada as one of NATO’s top “low-payers,” telling reporters: “Canada says, ‘Why should we pay when the United States will protect us for free?’”

    Even after hitting the 2% GDP target this year, Canada still ranks among the lowest-spending NATO members when compared to alliance peers, falling behind the U.S., UK and France, according to a 2025 NATO defence report. Still, the sharp rise in new recruits is seen as an early sign that gradual improvement is underway. Canadian Defence Minister David McGuinty says he expects the country to hit its long-term personnel recruitment goals sooner than previously projected.

    The rate of attrition — the share of active service members leaving the military each year — has also dipped slightly, a major reversal from 2024, when then-Defence Minister Bill Blair warned that chronic attrition had pushed the force into a “death spiral.” Active service members deployed on a recent Arctic sovereignty and security operation in Canada’s northern Nunavut territory told reporters the new funding package is widely welcomed, and in many cases, has been decades in the making.

    “We’ve been behind for a couple of decades, but at least we’re finally taking action to fix things now,” said Alden Campbell, a first officer with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Campbell noted that the recent restructuring of military pay has given a major boost to troop morale, as has the government’s promise to deliver long-awaited upgraded equipment. “Hopefully I’ll still be in my career long enough to benefit from these upgrades,” he added.

    In late April, the Canadian military confirmed it had enrolled more than 7,000 new active service members in the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the highest annual recruit total in 30 years. That 7,000 figure only accounts for recruits who completed the full enlistment process; total confirmed eligible applications to the Canadian Armed Forces nearly doubled year-over-year as of February, jumping from 21,700 in 2024-2025 to 40,116 this year, according to data shared by Canada’s Department of National Defence. The total number of people who expressed initial interest in enlistment was far higher, reaching nearly 100,000 over the past 12 months, a massive jump from the 36,000 total applications recorded in 2019-2020.

    Travis Haines, a lieutenant colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces, told reporters he attributes a large share of the recruitment surge to the military’s recent efforts to cut through outdated red tape. For years, the military faced heavy criticism for its slow, bureaucratic application process that left many eligible applicants waiting months for a response. In recent years, the force has digitized key parts of the application process — including allowing electronic submission of required eligibility documents — to drastically cut processing times. “There has always been strong public interest in joining, it was just nearly impossible to get through the old system,” Haines explained.

    Another key policy shift that has expanded the applicant pool is the 2022 change opening enlistment to Canadian permanent residents, not just Canadian citizens. Last year, foreign-born permanent residents made up roughly 20% of all new recruits. Now, Canada is laying the groundwork for a major military expansion, with a long-term target of 85,500 active regular service members and a total mobilization reserve force of up to 300,000. Duval-Lantoine noted that Canada has not pursued a mobilization plan of this scale since 2004, a clear sign the country is adjusting its defence posture in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine, where the role of large-scale military manpower has been a defining feature of the conflict. Like its European NATO allies, Duval-Lantoine said, Canada is “preparing for future conflicts by studying the lessons of the current one.”

  • Greece conducts controlled blast of mystery naval drone explosives

    Greece conducts controlled blast of mystery naval drone explosives

    A dramatic maritime security incident has unfolded off Greece’s western coast after local fishermen stumbled on an operational explosive-carrying naval drone hidden in a coastal cave near Lefkada in the Ionian Sea, prompting a major bomb disposal operation and reigniting fierce debate over the country’s preparedness for modern, asymmetric maritime threats. The unmanned surface vessel, which was found still running its engine on Thursday, was quickly secured by Greek coastguard vessels, towed to the nearby port of Vasiliki, and handled by specialist bomb disposal teams who safely removed its detonators and power battery before moving the 100 kilograms of estimated explosives to be disposed of via controlled detonation off the coast of Astakos. Multiple independent Greek media outlets have confirmed that the drone matches the design of Ukraine’s domestically produced Magura naval drone, a type of attack uncrewed vessel Kyiv has deployed extensively against Russian military and commercial maritime targets since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022. Reporters also confirm handwritten notes in the Ukrainian language were recovered from the vessel’s onboard storage, though Kyiv has so far declined to issue any official comment on the incident. Greek armed forces specialist technical teams are currently conducting a full forensic inspection of the recovered drone components to trace its origin and intended mission. Two leading working theories have emerged from official and media sources, outlined by Greek newspaper Ta Nea: the drone either fell overboard during transit by sea, or it lost contact with its operators while en route to target Russian commercial shipping in the Mediterranean, a mission that would expand Kyiv’s naval drone campaign far beyond its traditional operating area of the Black Sea. Public broadcaster ERT added that faulty sensors and GPS interference from recent bad weather in the region likely caused the drone to drift off course before it was found by local fishermen. The discovery has triggered intense political backlash in Athens, with opposition figures and minor parties slamming the ruling government for gaps in Greece’s maritime surveillance and defense capabilities. Opposition defense spokesman Michalis Katrinis warned that the incident exposed Greece’s unprotected maritime borders, while the country’s Communist Party issued a series of pointed questions demanding clarity on whether the Greek government was aware the drone was operating in its territorial waters, and if similar uncrewed vessels from allied nations are regularly active in Greek sovereign waters. The pro-Russian nationalist party Hellenic Solution went further, labeling the incursion a deliberate military provocation against Greece. Speaking on Saturday to defuse rising political tension, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias sought to downplay the security risks of the incident, stating that authorities had fully contained the threat and that the government is already moving to modernize Greece’s naval fleet. Dendias confirmed that Athens is pursuing policies to domestically produce advanced drones and deploy cutting-edge anti-drone defense systems to protect Greek territorial waters. The incident has already put Greece’s national intelligence agency, armed forces, and multiple relevant government ministries on heightened security alert. This discovery comes amid already tense context for Greek-Ukrainian defense cooperation: in November last year, the two nations signed a landmark agreement to jointly produce naval drones, granting Greece access to Ukrainian drone technology for its own domestic defense needs. However, just one week prior to this incident, leading Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported that Kyiv has recently demanded a veto over any Greek use of the jointly produced drones, out of concern that Athens could deploy them against Turkey – a NATO member with long-running maritime territorial disputes with Greece and close ties to Moscow. Beyond cooperation, the incident also fits a broader pattern of expanding naval drone activity in the Mediterranean: back in March, Russia accused Ukraine of attacking a Russian LNG tanker carrying sanctioned cargo with uncrewed sea drones in the Mediterranean between Malta and Libya, marking one of the first confirmed attacks of its kind outside the Black Sea. As the investigation continues, Greek authorities are still working to answer core questions about how the drone entered its territorial waters and what its ultimate target was, with the incident serving as a stark wake-up call for Southern European nations to adapt their maritime security frameworks to the growing threat of uncrewed attack vessels.

  • Japanese council votes to remove unconscious mayor

    Japanese council votes to remove unconscious mayor

    In an extraordinary and rare administrative move that underscores the balance between governance continuity and personal misfortune, the town assembly of Hachirogata, a small rural community in Japan’s northeastern Akita Prefecture, has unanimously approved a no-confidence motion to remove 72-year-old Mayor Kikuo Hatakeyama from office. Hatakeyama, who has led the town of roughly 5,000 residents since 2008, has remained unconscious for months after suffering a life-altering brain hemorrhage when he fell seriously ill back in February.

    Local legal frameworks created an unexpected impasse after the mayor’s family requested an official assessment of his ability to carry out his duties. According to local Japanese outlet the Japan Times, Hatakeyama’s own wife approached the assembly last month, stating that a resignation from the post would be the best outcome for both her husband and the town. However, Hachirogata’s local administrative rules stipulate that a mayor must submit formal notification of their resignation directly to the assembly chair — a step Hatakeyama cannot take in his current unresponsive state, and a request submitted on his behalf by family members was ruled invalid by the town government in April.

    Faced with a growing administrative vacuum that threatened the delivery of local public services in a community whose economy relies heavily on agriculture and commercial fishing centered on its surrounding rice fields, the assembly moved forward with the no-confidence motion as the fastest legally viable path to resolve the leadership gap. The motion itself explicitly framed the removal as a decision rooted in administrative necessity, rather than any rebuke of the long-serving mayor, noting that the vote represented a deeply difficult choice for all assembly members.

    Japan’s National Association of Town and Village Assemblies has confirmed that such a no-confidence motion against an incapacitated mayor due to serious illness is almost unprecedented in the country’s local governance history. Per the terms of the motion, Hatakeyama will formally lose his position on May 19. A special election to select his permanent successor is scheduled to be held within 50 days of the vacancy taking effect, allowing the town to quickly restore full functional leadership for its residents.

  • What to know about British elections that hammered Starmer’s Labour Party

    What to know about British elections that hammered Starmer’s Labour Party

    LONDON – Just 18 months after Keir Starmer’s centre-left Labour Party swept to power ending 14 years of Conservative rule, the British prime minister is fighting for his political future after a catastrophic showing in the UK’s 2025 local and regional elections. The final vote counts, certified Saturday, delivered a string of humiliating defeats for Labour: the party lost more than 1,000 local council seats across England, and was ousted from government in Wales after holding power there for 27 consecutive years. Meanwhile, hard-right anti-immigration party Reform UK, led by veteran nationalist figure Nigel Farage, secured a historic breakthrough, picking up nearly 1,300 seats across England, claiming second place in Wales and making unexpected inroads in Scotland. The elections were widely framed as an informal midterm referendum on Starmer’s leadership, and the final outcome delivered a clear, unforgiving rejection from voters that has sent shockwaves through Westminster. Below are the five most critical lessons emerging from the poll results.

    ## Starmer’s leadership is hanging by a thread
    Despite the overwhelming rejection at the polls, Starmer has repeatedly rejected calls to step down, arguing that his resignation would plunge the UK into unnecessary political instability. So far, the prime minister has avoided an immediate open challenge to his leadership: most senior cabinet members have issued public statements of support, and the party’s most high-profile potential contenders – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting, former deputy leader Angela Rayner and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham – have all remained publicly silent on any leadership bid. But pressure is building quickly from within the Labour parliamentary party: a growing number of backbench lawmakers are now calling on Starmer to announce a formal timeline for his departure before the end of 2025. Under UK political rules, parties can replace a sitting prime minister mid-term without triggering an early general election, making a leadership transition logistically possible. “There has to be a timetable,” veteran Labour MP Clive Betts told the BBC, while fellow legislator Tony Vaughan called for an “orderly transition of leadership.” To demonstrate a quick shift in direction, Starmer announced two senior appointments Saturday, bringing veteran figures from previous Labour governments back into senior roles: former prime minister Gordon Brown was named a special envoy for global finance, and former deputy leader Harriet Harman was appointed as an advisor on women and gender equity. Starmer is set to deliver a major policy speech Monday in a bid to rebuild momentum, ahead of the government’s upcoming legislative agenda announcement, which will be delivered by King Charles III at the State Opening of Parliament on Wednesday.

    ## Reform UK claims a historic political breakthrough
    The 2025 local elections marked a turning point for Reform UK, Farage’s hard-right anti-establishment party that has positioned itself as a populist alternative to the UK’s long-dominant major parties. Running on a platform centered on aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric and anti-establishment appeals, the party flipped hundreds of council seats in working-class northern English communities – including Sunderland – that have been solid Labour strongholds for decades. It also made significant gains at the expense of the Conservative Party in traditionally right-leaning areas such as Essex, east of London. Farage hailed the results as a “historic change in British politics,” saying he was confident the voters who switched to Reform were not just casting a protest vote, but making a long-term ideological shift. “Voters who have come to us are not doing it as a short-term protest,” Farage said. The party currently holds just 8 of the 650 seats in the UK House of Commons, and it remains unclear whether it can translate this local success into gains in a future national general election.

    ## The United Kingdom’s constitutional unity faces growing pressure
    The election results also highlighted growing regional divides across the UK, with pro-independence parties set to take power in both of the country’s semi-autonomous regional governments in Scotland and Wales – though neither has placed an immediate independence referendum on their agenda. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which has held power in Edinburgh since 2007, secured another term in government, but fell short of an outright parliamentary majority, making a new independence referendum unlikely in the near term. Labour and Reform UK tied for a distant second place in the Scottish Parliament. In Wales, Plaid Cymru – the Welsh nationalist party that aims to secure full independence from the UK but has no immediate plans to hold a vote – won the most seats in the Senedd, Wales’ devolved legislature. Though it fell short of a majority, it is widely expected to form a new governing administration. Reform UK took second place, while incumbent Labour fell to a disappointing third place, with outgoing Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan losing her own seat.

    ## Economic frustrations are at the root of Labour’s collapse
    As with most sitting governments facing voter backlash, the state of the UK economy lies at the heart of Labour’s poor showing. After ending 14 years of Conservative rule marked by austerity policies and the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic, Starmer’s government has struggled to bring down the cost of living and stimulate growth, hampered by ongoing global economic headwinds from the war in Ukraine and escalating geopolitical tensions involving Iran. Starmer has also alienated many of the party’s core left-wing supporters with proposed cuts to welfare spending, several of which were reversed after open rebellions from Labour lawmakers. Some senior Labour figures argue that the government’s progressive achievements – including new renter protections and an increase to the national minimum wage – have been overlooked by voters, with many pinning the blame on Starmer, who has been criticized as an uninspiring leader whose tenure has been marred by repeated scandals. The most high-profile of these was his failed attempt to appoint Peter Mandelson, a longtime party insider with ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as UK ambassador to Washington. But outgoing Barnsley Council leader Stephen Houghton, whose Labour administration was ousted by Reform UK in last week’s vote, said the problem ran far deeper than Starmer’s leadership. “This has been coming for 30 years around the country, in post-industrial communities, coastal communities, that have been left behind,” Houghton said. “You can change prime ministers all day long. If you don’t change policy, it’s not going to change.”

    ## The UK’s decades-old two-party system is collapsing
    Last week’s results confirm what political analysts have warned about for years: the UK’s long-standing two-party system, dominated for more than a century by Labour and the Conservatives, is fracturing beyond repair. The Conservatives also suffered massive losses in the local elections, leaving both major parties bleeding support to smaller, ideologically driven groups. Voters now have a far broader range of options than in previous decades, including the centrist Liberal Democrats and pro-independence nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales. But the biggest gains went to populist insurgent parties: Reform UK and the Green Party. Led by self-described “eco-populist” Zack Polanski, the Greens have expanded their policy focus beyond environmental action to include social justice and support for Palestinian statehood, and the party picked up hundreds of council seats from Labour in urban centers and university towns, taking control of multiple local authorities. Tony Travers, a professor of government at the London School of Economics, said the results make it almost certain that the next UK general election, scheduled to take place by 2029, will not deliver an outright majority to any single party. “So then you’re in the world of, after the election, two or three big minority parties trying to work out how they would govern,” Travers said – an outcome that has long been considered “very un-British.”

  • Hungary’s Péter Magyar is set to be sworn in as prime minister, ending Viktor Orbán’s 16-year rule

    Hungary’s Péter Magyar is set to be sworn in as prime minister, ending Viktor Orbán’s 16-year rule

    BUDAPEST, Hungary — In a historic shift that reshapes Hungary’s political landscape and its role in the European Union, Péter Magyar took the oath of office as Hungary’s new prime minister Saturday, walking through the doors of Budapest’s iconic neo-Gothic Parliament building to formally close 16 years of Viktor Orbán’s nationalist-populist governance.

    Magyar’s newly formed center-right Tisza Party delivered a historic upset last month, defeating Orbán’s long-ruling Fidesz in a landslide election that sent shockwaves across Central Europe. Tisza secured a governing majority of 141 seats in the 199-seat national parliament — a result unmatched by any single party in Hungary’s post-Communist era. Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP alliance, which held 135 seats in the previous legislature, will now occupy just 52 seats, with the far-right Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland) party taking the remaining six. For the first time since Hungary established its first post-Communist parliament in 1990, Orbán will not participate in the inaugural session. Following his election defeat, Orbán announced he would step away from the prime minister’s office to focus on rebuilding his right-wing political base.

    The 45-year-old Magyar, a former insider within Orbán’s party who only launched Tisza in 2024, campaigned on a promise of radical systemic change. A core pillar of his platform is rooting out systemic official corruption, which he has repeatedly argued has stifled economic opportunity for ordinary Hungarians for more than a decade.

    To mark the end of the Orbán era, Magyar has called on Hungarians across the country to join an all-day “regime-change celebration” outside Parliament on the day of his inauguration. After delivering his oath of office at approximately 3 p.m. local time, Magyar is scheduled to address the gathered crowd to outline his administration’s early priorities. Budapest’s liberal mayor Gergely Karácsony has also organized a public celebration along the banks of the Danube River Saturday evening, inviting all Hungarians to mark the political transition. In a social media post, Karácsony framed the gathering as a tribute to Hungarians who had faced repercussions under Orbán’s rule — including dismissed teachers, targeted journalists, persecuted minority groups and marginalized religious communities. “We can finally leave this era behind us — but first, let us remember the everyday heroes and express our gratitude with a farewell to the system,” Karácsony wrote.

    Among the new administration’s most pressing foreign policy priorities is repairing Hungary’s frayed relationship with the European Union, a tie Orbán pushed to the breaking point through years of confrontational rhetoric, repeated vetoes of key EU policy decisions and a gradual geopolitical alignment with Russia. Unlocking roughly €17 billion ($20 billion) in frozen EU development funds, withheld from Hungary during Orbán’s tenure over widespread rule-of-law and corruption violations, sits at the top of Magyar’s policy agenda. The injection of funds is widely viewed as critical to jumpstarting Hungary’s stagnant economy, which has seen little to no growth over the past four years. As a tangible signal of his government’s commitment to realigning with EU institutions, Tisza officials confirmed the EU flag will be raised once again on Parliament’s facade — 11 years after Orbán’s administration ordered it removed.

    Political analysts say the election of Magyar and the collapse of Orbán’s long-standing hold on power marks a dramatic shift not just for Hungary, but for the entire European Union. For years, Orbán’s open defiance of EU norms and frequent vetoes of bloc-wide policies on climate, migration and sanctions against Russia gridlocked EU decision-making, and his exit is expected to ease long-running political tensions within the 27-member bloc.

  • Putin denounces Nato at scaled back Victory Day parade

    Putin denounces Nato at scaled back Victory Day parade

    On May 9, Russia marked its most sacred national holiday — Victory Day, commemorating the Soviet Union’s historic defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II — with a drastically modified parade on Moscow’s Red Square that reflected the ongoing realities of the four-year-plus full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For the first time in nearly 20 years, no modern military hardware rolled across the iconic square, a change framed by Russian officials as a practical response to battlefield demands and heightened security risks amid the ongoing conflict.

    The event, held under tightened security protocols prompted by concerns over potential Ukrainian drone attacks, still saw thousands of uniformed military personnel march past the reviewing stand, where Russian President Vladimir Putin was joined by a small contingent of visiting world leaders. Unlike the 2025 80th anniversary parade, which drew high-profile attendees including Chinese President Xi Jinping and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, only three foreign leaders attended this year’s ceremony: Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Laotian President Thongloun Sisoulith, and Malaysia’s King Sultan Ibrahim. In a notable development, North Korean soldiers also took part in the march, a visible sign of the deepening military ties between Moscow and Pyongyang.

    Putin opened his annual address by honoring the sacrifices of Soviet World War II veterans, before framing his so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine as a direct continuation of that generation’s legacy. “The great feat of the generation of victors inspires the soldiers carrying out the goals of the special military operation today,” Putin told the assembled crowd. He went on to frame the conflict as a defensive struggle against a Western-backed threat, claiming: “They are confronting an aggressive force armed and supported by the whole bloc of Nato. And despite this, our heroes move forward.”

    The Russian leader extended his praise to Russian civilians contributing to the war effort, highlighting the work of factory workers, scientists, military engineers, war correspondents, medical workers, and educators. “No matter how military tactics change, the future of the country is being provided for by the people,” he added. Following the address, traditional ceremonial cannon salutes rang out across Red Square, and a military brass band performed, before Russian state media broadcast footage of Russian soldiers deployed on the front lines in Ukraine to viewers at home.

    Across the rest of Russia, Victory Day celebrations were muted and uneven. Pre-parade events were held earlier in far-eastern cities including Vladivostok, where thousands of locals joined the traditional Immortal Regiment march, carrying portraits of relatives who fought in World War II. While some regional parades did include military vehicles, Russian state media confirmed that most were vintage World War II-era models rather than modern weapons systems. Many smaller cities and towns across the country canceled public parades and large-scale celebrations entirely amid security concerns.

    Russian officials have openly defended the decision to scale back the Moscow parade, arguing that the country’s active military equipment is needed far more on the Ukrainian front lines than in a ceremonial display. “Our tanks are busy right now. They are fighting. We need them more on the battlefield than on Red Square,” Russian MP Yevgeny Popov told the BBC earlier in the week, echoing comments from other government figures who cited the “current operational situation” as the core reason for the changes.

    The 2026 celebrations unfolded against the backdrop of a temporary truce announced days earlier by then-U.S. President Donald Trump, after which Russia and Ukraine agreed to a three-day ceasefire covering the Victory Day holiday period. While the ceasefire largely held during parade events, both sides had already exchanged numerous accusations of widespread violations across frontline positions in the days leading up to the holiday. Kyiv had initially called for a longer indefinite truce starting May 6, a proposal Moscow did not agree to, setting the terms for the limited three-day cessation of hostilities.

  • Magyar to become Hungary’s ‘regime change’ PM

    Magyar to become Hungary’s ‘regime change’ PM

    After 16 years of nationalist leadership under Viktor Orban, Hungary is on the cusp of a historic political shift this Saturday, as pro-European conservative Peter Magyar prepares to be sworn in as the country’s new prime minister, fulfilling his campaign promise of widespread “regime change”.

    Magyar, a 45-year-old former insider of Orban’s government who rose to prominence as a fierce critic of the long-serving leader, secured a landslide victory in the April 12 parliamentary election. His Tisza Party captured 141 of the 199 seats in Hungary’s national legislature, granting the party a commanding two-thirds majority — a threshold large enough to rewrite the country’s constitution and push through the sweeping anti-corruption and institutional reforms Magyar campaigned on.

    A core pillar of Magyar’s policy agenda is rolling back the structural changes Orban implemented over his tenure to consolidate state control over key independent sectors, including the judiciary, mainstream media, and academia. Orban, a 62-year-old leader who built close political ties with both former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, centered his rule on building what he called an “illiberal democracy” that rolled back many liberal democratic rights in the Central European nation of 9.5 million people. Following his election defeat, Orban announced last month that he would step back from legislative politics — leaving the parliamentary seat he won vacant, a break from his continuous participation in parliament since Hungary’s 1990 democratic transition. He has stated he will now focus on reorganizing his conservative nationalist political camp.

    Top of Magyar’s immediate policy priorities is unlocking billions of euros in European Union cohesion funds that Brussels has frozen over longstanding concerns about rule of law erosion under Orban’s government. Last week, ahead of his inauguration, Magyar held high-stakes talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels to move the process forward.

    The inauguration proceedings will kick off at 10 a.m. local time (8 a.m. GMT) during the new parliament’s opening inaugural session, with the ceremony live-streamed on large public screens installed around the Budapest parliamentary building. Lawmakers will hold a formal vote to confirm Magyar as prime minister in the afternoon, after which he is expected to deliver remarks to assembled supporters gathered outside the legislature.

    Magyar’s new administration has already signaled a clear break from Orban’s government in terms of representation. Lawmakers are set to confirm hotelier Agnes Forsthoffer as the new parliament speaker, one of dozens of women tapped by Tisza for senior leadership roles. Other historic nominations include Vilmos Katai-Nemeth, a lawyer set to serve as social and family affairs minister — Hungary’s first ever visually impaired cabinet member — and Krisztian Koszegi, a Roma history teacher nominated for deputy parliament speaker. Saturday’s inauguration ceremonies, both inside and outside parliament, are intentionally crafted to carry strong symbolic meaning: the event features branding and music that honors Hungary’s EU membership, the country’s large Roma minority community, and ethnic Hungarian populations living in neighboring nations.

    Hungary faces steep structural challenges entering the new era, including years of stagnant economic growth and declining quality of core public services that analysts say will require long-term overhauls. Expectations among Hungarian voters are exceptionally high, with broad public goodwill toward the new government matched by pressure to deliver tangible changes quickly. “There is a lot of patience and goodwill toward the new government, but the expectations are through the roof and need to be met in the short-term as well,” Andrea Virag, strategy director at the Budapest-based liberal think tank Republikon Institute, told Agence France-Presse.

    As part of his “regime change” agenda, Magyar has already called on Orban-aligned President and other senior allies of the former leader to resign from their posts. He has also urged Hungarian authorities to block Orban’s close associates from moving financial assets abroad ahead of the leadership transition.

    Virag noted that the inclusive framing of the inauguration is intentional: it underscores Magyar’s mission of national unity and reconciliation after years of polarizing, divisive politics under Orban. “Magyar seeks to show that he represents a form of national unity and reconciliation after Orban’s politics of division,” Virag said. “With the festivities he also wants to show that it was not a mere change of government, but a start of a new era.”

    Notably, the new parliament will mark the first time since 1990 that left-of-center and liberal opposition parties will have no representation in the legislature, following the election results.

  • Moscow is set to mark Victory Day with a Red Square parade under tight security

    Moscow is set to mark Victory Day with a Red Square parade under tight security

    MOSCOW — Tens of thousands of security personnel fanned out across central Moscow on Saturday as the city prepared to host one of the most unusual Victory Day parades in modern Russian history, a stripped-down commemoration of the 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany held against the backdrop of a newly agreed three-day ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine brokered by the United States.

    Victory Day, marking the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, holds unmatched cultural and political weight in Russia as the nation’s most sacred secular holiday. The conflict, known domestically as the Great Patriotic War, claimed an estimated 27 million Soviet lives, a collective sacrifice that has shaped Russian national identity and remained one of the few unifying cultural touchstones across decades of political upheaval. For more than 25 years, President Vladimir Putin has leveraged this national reverence to showcase Russia’s military power, rally public support for his government, and galvanize backing for the ongoing military campaign in Ukraine, now in its fifth year.

    This year’s event breaks with two decades of tradition: for the first time since 2008, no heavy military hardware — including tanks, armored vehicles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles — will roll across Red Square’s cobblestones. The only traditional military display will be a flyover of Russian combat jets. Regional parades across the country have also been scaled back or canceled outright, a decision Russian officials openly tie to the threat of Ukrainian long-range strikes.

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that authorities have implemented sweeping additional security measures to protect the event, framing the format shift as a necessary response to the “current operational situation.” Ahead of the parade, Moscow authorities imposed widespread restrictions on mobile internet access and text messaging services across the capital, a security move that comes as the Russian government has steadily tightened online censorship and control over digital activities, sparking rare, muted public discontent in recent months.

    The new U.S.-brokered ceasefire, which runs from Saturday through Monday, has lowered immediate fears that Ukraine would attempt to disrupt the parade with drone or missile attacks. This truce marks the third attempted ceasefire in as many weeks: previous unilateral truces declared by Russia and Ukraine failed to hold, with both sides trading blame for continued offensive operations along the 1,000-kilometer front line. U.S. President Donald Trump announced the deal Friday, alongside an agreement for a prisoner exchange, calling the pause in fighting the potential “beginning of the end” of the war.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded to the ceasefire announcement with biting sarcasm, issuing a decree that mockingly granted Russia permission to hold its Victory Day celebrations and declared Red Square a temporarily no-strike zone for the day. Peskov dismissed the gesture as a “silly joke” Saturday, telling reporters, “We don’t need anyone’s permission to be proud of our Victory Day.”

    In the lead-up to the event, Russian authorities issued a stark threat in response to any potential disruption: if Ukraine attempts to attack the Red Square festivities, Russia will launch a massive missile strike on central Kyiv. The Russian Defense Ministry also urged civilian residents and foreign diplomatic staff to evacuate the Ukrainian capital immediately. The European Union rejected the warning, announcing that its diplomatic mission would remain in Kyiv despite the threat.

    The front line has seen incremental but steady Russian gains in recent months, as Russia’s larger, better-supplied military pushes forward across eastern and southern Ukraine. Ukraine, however, has expanded its long-range strike capabilities dramatically since 2022, developing domestic drones that can hit targets more than 1,000 kilometers inside Russian territory — far beyond the country’s previous strike range. Ukrainian forces have regularly targeted Russian energy infrastructure, military depots, and manufacturing facilities in deep strikes in recent months.

    A small cohort of foreign leaders traveled to Moscow for the festivities, including Malaysia’s King Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar, Laos President Thongloun Sisoulith, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and Belarus’ authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko. In a notable break, Slovakia Prime Minister Robert Fico — the leader of an EU member state — planned to meet Putin and lay flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier outside the Kremlin walls but opted not to attend the Red Square parade itself.

  • ‘Ideology, family and history’: The UAE-Saudi Arabia feud explained

    ‘Ideology, family and history’: The UAE-Saudi Arabia feud explained

    The festering rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that is now reshaping regional and global politics has roots stretching back to a 1950s border conflict, a power struggle rooted in historical distrust and modern ambitions for regional dominance. Late veteran journalist David Holden first chronicled the 1950s Buraimi dispute in his 1966 work *Farewell Arabia*, recounting how Saudi Arabia attempted to bribe Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan—then the “Lord of Buraimi” and later the founding father of the UAE—from the ruling al-Nahyan family to hand over control of the oil-rich Buraimi oasis. When Zayed rejected the bribe, Saudi Arabia launched an invasion that ultimately failed, setting a template for decades of tension between the two Gulf monarchies.

    Today, that historical rivalry has reignited between Zayed’s son, current UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed (known widely as MBZ), and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). The two nations are now at odds across nearly every major sphere of influence in the Middle East and beyond, from the battlefields of North Africa to global energy markets, and analysts widely agree that the outcome of their feud will define the future of the entire region—especially as American engagement in the Gulf faces growing uncertainty amid the Israel-Iran conflict. The spillover of their rift will even reach household budgets in Europe, Asia, and North America, through shifts in global energy pricing.

    The most high-profile public split came this month, when Abu Dhabi ended its 60-year membership in the Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), vowing to increase daily oil production by millions of barrels. Energy analysts note that the surface-level disagreement centers on long-term strategy: the UAE prioritizes maximizing immediate profits by ramping up output, while Saudi Arabia prefers managing global supply to sustain higher long-term oil prices.

    But this policy rift is merely a symptom of a far deeper power struggle. For decades, OPEC has operated as a bloc of major oil-exporting Muslim-majority nations led by Saudi Arabia, which holds more than twice the UAE’s proven oil reserves, is home to Islam’s two holiest sites (Mecca and Medina), and has a population of 36 million—more than triple the UAE’s total population of 10 million, just one million of whom are native Emirati citizens. “Saudi Arabia wants to project its power through OPEC and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Because of its size and resources, it sees itself as the natural leader of the Gulf,” explained Rob Geist Pinfold, an international security expert at King’s College London. “The UAE is small, but it has undergone a remarkable transformation to become a larger-than-life global brand. The UAE feels deferring to the Saudis prevents it from exercising power on the world stage.”

    Historical context reinforces this distrust: the coastal trading communities that formed the modern UAE have long been squeezed between Persian influence to the east and the expansionist Saudi royal family, originating from the central Arabian region of Najd, to the west. Analysts argue that MBZ’s contemporary foreign policy is a modern iteration of this ancient rivalry, supercharged by decades of oil wealth and cutting-edge digital and military technology. “The Emiratis have always viewed the Saudis as a predatory neighbour who want to make them their vassals,” noted Patrick Theros, a former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar who first arrived in the Middle East when the Buraimi dispute was still a raw, unresolved issue. “They have also, traditionally, been wary of the Persians asserting their own zone of influence in the Gulf. MBZ finally decided that it’s possible for a small Gulf country to stand up to the Saudis and the Persians.”

    Today, the UAE has emerged as one of the most vocal Gulf supporters of U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran, and has received Israeli air defense systems to fend off Iranian drone and missile attacks. To offset its small size and geographic limitations, the UAE has also built alliances with local factions across strategically important states west of the Arabian Peninsula—a strategy that has repeatedly clashed with Saudi interests.

    The two Gulf powers back opposing factions in Sudan’s ongoing civil war: the UAE supports the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary, while Saudi Arabia backs the established Sudanese government. Middle East Eye first revealed that Saudi Arabia even lobbied Washington to impose sanctions on the UAE for its RSF support, exposing how deeply bilateral ties have been strained in that theater. In Yemen, just before the 2025 Israel-Iran war escalated, Saudi Arabia launched strikes against UAE-aligned secessionist groups in eastern Yemen, even partnering with Oman to block an Emirati power grab in the region.

    For the UAE, control or allied influence in these regions delivers critical strategic depth that its small domestic territory cannot provide. A RSF victory in Sudan would give the UAE an allied partner on the Red Sea coast directly opposite Saudi Arabia, while the UAE-aligned Southern Transitional Council seeks to split from Yemen to control oil-rich territory bordering the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The UAE has also recognized the breakaway Republic of Somaliland, a move backed by Israel, further expanding its influence along key global shipping lanes. Amid ongoing Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, the primary chokepoint for Gulf oil exports, control of alternative Red Sea shipping routes has become a critical geopolitical priority for both nations.

    Beyond territorial competition, the two nations hold fundamentally different approaches to post-Arab Spring regional order. After the 2011 uprisings that collapsed multiple long-standing Arab regimes, the UAE has backed secessionist and anti-Islamist factions across conflict zones including Yemen, Libya, and Sudan, while Saudi Arabia has prioritized backing unified national governments and preserving existing state institutions. “Our Saudi approach is based on supporting the nation state: preserving its unity, strengthening its institutions and sovereignty, and contributing to its reconstruction rather than its fragmentation,” explained Hesham Alghannam, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Conversely, the other side’s regional engagement has often been characterised by an obsessive, narrow strategic emphasis on combating Islamists or political rivals. This has weakened state institutions, empowered militias, and created parallel forces that challenge legitimate authority. We clearly support combating extremism and terrorism, but through national institutions operating within the framework of the state and the rule of law. This should not be done through arming non-state actors or entrenching internal divisions.”

    It is important to note that the current rift was not inevitable: for a decade after the 2011 Arab Spring, the two monarchies shared common interests that temporarily aligned their policies. The 2012 electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt spooked both royal houses, which viewed Islamist political movements as an existential threat to their rule. Both also saw the rise of the Houthi movement in Yemen as an Iranian-aligned threat, and jointly led the three-and-a-half-year blockade of Qatar, accusing Doha of supporting groups hostile to Gulf monarchies. Experts note this cooperation was partially rooted in personal ties: when MBS rose to power in 2015, MBZ mentored the younger crown prince, and was instrumental in convincing MBS to launch the Qatar boycott. “You can absolutely see in those early days when MBS was coming to prominence, the close working relationship. It was basically MBZ that convinced MBS to boycott Qatar,” said Neil Quilliam, a Gulf expert and associate fellow at Chatham House.

    But analysts emphasize this period of cooperation was an aberration, not the norm. Long before the Arab Spring, the two nations fell out over plans for deeper Gulf integration. In 2009, the UAE withdrew from the GCC monetary union project, which aimed to create a single shared currency for Gulf states, after Abu Dhabi was angered by the decision to site the union’s headquarters in Riyadh. “It would be like France and Germany having spat over the EU and one withdrawing,” noted Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute. “Before the Arab Spring, it looked like the break was going to be between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, not Qatar. The Arab Spring temporarily brought them together, but if you take a long-term view, pre-2010 and post-2020, they were at loggerheads.”

    The two nations have also diverged sharply on reconciliation with Qatar after the 2021 al-Ula agreement that formally ended the blockade. While Saudi Arabia moved quickly to repair ties with Doha, the UAE has maintained a cool, suspicious relationship with Qatar years after the official end of hostilities.

    The starkest example of their modern policy divergence comes in their approaches to Israel and the Palestinian conflict. In 2020, the UAE broke ranks with the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, a plan crafted by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the entire Arab League that requires the creation of an independent Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders before any Arab state normalizes relations with Israel. While Saudi Arabia had been in talks with the Biden administration to normalize relations with Israel in 2023, Israel’s full-scale military campaign in Gaza ended any prospect of a deal. The UN and multiple independent human rights bodies have classified Israel’s military operation in Gaza as genocide, which has killed more than 72,600 Palestinians to date, and public opinion in Saudi Arabia is overwhelmingly opposed to normalization; a 2023 poll by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy found 96 percent of Saudis support cutting all ties with Israel over the war. MBS has publicly echoed this widespread public sentiment. “Politics in Saudi Arabia is heading back towards the more consensual model that it was based on,” Quilliam explained. “There is a diversity of views on Israel in the UAE, but MBZ feels he doesn’t need to worry about that. MBS came to see some of MBZ’s adventurous positions as a liability and has developed a better understanding of the Arab street.”

    The ongoing 2025 war between Israel and Iran has only widened this rift, pushing the two nations to build competing blocs within the U.S. alliance network. While both nations remain deeply dependent on Washington for security and economic cooperation, the UAE has deepened its strategic partnership with Israel, while Saudi Arabia has built a broader coalition with Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. “Neither the UAE or Saudi Arabia can give up the U.S. But those new alliances are going to grow,” Theros said. As the rivalry plays out across energy markets, battlefields, and diplomatic circles, its outcome will not only reshape the Middle East but send ripple effects across the global economy and international order.

  • A China move now on Taiwan would be an enormous gamble

    A China move now on Taiwan would be an enormous gamble

    In debates over U.S. military engagement in Iran, a core argument from critics has gained widespread traction: that the ongoing conflict erodes American deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, undermines the confidence of U.S. allies and partners, and drastically increases the risk of a violent confrontation between the United States and China over Taiwan.

    There is no question that this premise rests on tangible, observable facts. The U.S. military, particularly its naval branch, is already smaller than strategic analysts argue it needs to meet global defense demands, and a large share of Washington’s available combat power is currently tied down in the Middle East amid the Iran campaign. Currently, no deployable U.S. aircraft carrier is positioned in the Western Pacific, and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit — the only forward-deployed Marine amphibious task force in the region — has been reallocated to support operations related to Iran.

    Equally concerning for defense planners is the pace at which the Iran conflict is depleting U.S. weapons stockpiles, especially long-range precision strike missiles and air defense ordnance. While the full severity of the stockpile shortfall remains unconfirmed, it is widely assessed that the U.S. currently does not maintain the reserve of munitions that defense leaders would deem sufficient for a major conflict with China. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) Commander Admiral Samuel Paparo recently alluded to this very gap in public remarks, lending official weight to these concerns.

    Against this backdrop, a critical question has emerged: does this moment create a tempting window for Chinese leader Xi Jinping to launch aggressive action against Taiwan, or against other U.S. partners in the region including the Philippines and Japan?

    On paper, the opportunity seems clear. China has carried out the largest and fastest military expansion since World War II, building a modern, capable force focused heavily on its primary near-term objective: seizing control of Taiwan. For more than 50 years, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has planned and trained for this mission. Today, it has the naval and air power to establish a full blockade around the island, and its combined amphibious and airborne lift capacity is sufficient to move a large invasion force across the Taiwan Strait. Beijing’s massive rocket force can strike key targets across Taiwan, and years of subversion and cognitive warfare have cultivated pro-unification fifth column elements within Taiwan’s population to support an invasion.

    For Xi, the math could seem compelling — particularly if he believes any conflict over Taiwan could be contained to the Taiwan Strait and concluded quickly, within a matter of weeks. But a successful seizure of Taiwan is far from a guaranteed outcome, even with U.S. forces tied down in the Middle East, and Xi faces a host of major strategic risks that could give him serious pause.

    First, the U.S. retains significant latent military capability in the Indo-Pacific even amid the Iran deployment, and can quickly reinforce regional positions from other global command areas. Beyond force numbers, the U.S. has demonstrated its operational proficiency in recent conflicts in Venezuela and Iran, as well as in ongoing efforts to intercept Houthi missiles and drones in the Red Sea. Notably, Chinese-made air defense systems and missiles supplied to Iranian and other proxies have performed poorly against U.S. and allied systems, a reality that cannot be lost on Chinese military planners.

    Another key factor: the PLA has not fought a major conventional conflict in more than 50 years, leaving it untested in large-scale, high-intensity combat against a modern adversary. If the conflict expands beyond a short, contained operation, China has openly acknowledged that its military is not prepared to protect China’s global interests. The PLA lacks the capability to operate far from Chinese shores or project power more than 1,000 miles beyond the mainland, even as its longer-range missiles can hit targets much farther out.

    A prolonged conflict would also bring catastrophic economic consequences for Beijing. China’s international trade would almost certainly come to a complete halt, along with its imports of critical energy and food supplies. Chinese manufacturers would be cut off from access to Western components and technology, and finished Chinese goods would lose access to major global markets. Losing export revenue denominated in hard currency, primarily U.S. dollars, and being cut off from the global dollar-based financial system would create an unprecedented economic crisis. While Beijing could attempt to rely on its own currency, the renminbi is not freely convertible, and it is not widely held or desired by global trading partners — making it nearly impossible to purchase critical imports from Australia, the Middle East, and other suppliers that require hard currency payment.

    Domestically, a prolonged, costly conflict could also erode Xi’s domestic standing. For years, Xi has urged Chinese citizens to “eat bitterness” and prepare for hardship, but more than 600 million Chinese people live on $5 or less per day. If thousands of young Chinese soldiers are killed in an invasion that becomes bogged down, public anger could build, even after an initial wave of nationalist sentiment. Xi’s existing political opponents would almost certainly capitalize on public discontent to challenge his rule.

    Finally, any unprovoked invasion of Taiwan would accelerate a global shift toward balancing against Chinese aggression, uniting more countries in cooperation with the United States to counter Beijing. This shift is already underway, driven by Xi’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy. Japan, which resisted major defense expansion for decades under successive U.S. administrations, has now significantly bolstered its military capabilities in response to Chinese threats. The Philippines, Indonesia, and even New Zealand have grown increasingly alarmed by Beijing’s expansionism and deepened security cooperation with the U.S. In Washington, the U.S. government and military now openly recognize the severity of the Chinese threat, a marked shift from a decade ago when public warnings about China were effectively banned in policy and military circles.

    Even Europe, long hesitant to confront China, has begun to recognize the importance of strengthening defense, spurred by Russian aggression in Ukraine and a more tough-minded U.S. approach under the Trump administration. In the Global South, public backlash against Chinese aggression would grow if the PLA launched deadly attacks on Taiwan, and Chinese investment and influence in the region would collapse. Even Russia would likely only offer symbolic pro-Beijing statements rather than concrete support, happy to let China and the U.S. exhaust one another.

    If China attacked U.S. military bases in Guam, the Northern Marianas, Hawaii, or anywhere on U.S. territory, it would kill American citizens — uniting even deeply divided U.S. public opinion against Beijing, and eliminating any chance that pro-China leftist groups in the U.S. could soften Washington’s response. Even the traditional pro-engagement business community on Wall Street, which has long prioritized economic ties with Beijing, would likely rethink its support for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) after an invasion.

    Ultimately, only Xi Jinping knows what decision he will make. It remains possible that he will judge the current moment, with U.S. forces occupied in Iran, as too good an opportunity to pass. But any decision to launch an invasion of Taiwan would be one of the largest gambles in modern military history. For all their ambitions, Xi and other senior CCP leaders are not suicidal — a fact underscored by their long pattern of moving personal wealth and family members overseas to safety ahead of any potential crisis. Retired U.S. Marine Colonel Grant Newsham, author of *When China Attacks: A Warning to America*, contributed this analysis.