Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Judge rules Trump must hand over records sought by BBC in defamation case

    Judge rules Trump must hand over records sought by BBC in defamation case

    In a pivotal first hearing in Miami, Florida, a federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump must comply with a legal request from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to hand over confidential financial records held by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust — the entity created to manage his business interests during his tenure as U.S. president. The ruling comes as the BBC defends itself against a $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Trump over a 2023 *Panorama* documentary episode that edited together segments of a speech Trump delivered on January 6, 2021, the day of the U.S. Capitol riot.

    Judge Enjoliqué Lett granted the BBC’s motion to compel the release of the financial documents during Tuesday’s hearing, handing the public broadcaster a partial procedural victory in the pre-trial discovery phase of the case. While the ruling remains open to appeal by Trump’s legal team, it requires Trump to produce records that will back up his core claim that the controversial *Panorama* edit caused him substantial financial harm. The judge issued a split decision on a separate BBC request for documents directly related to the January 6 Capitol riot, partially granting and partially denying that demand.

    The pre-trial discovery process, during which opposing legal sides exchange evidence to build their cases, has already become a major point of contention between the two parties. BBC legal counsel Charles Tobin told the court that the public broadcaster has already turned over more than 87,000 pages of relevant documents, while Trump’s legal team has only produced a paltry 735 pages — most of which, Tobin argued, are publicly available news articles and other internet-sourced material, amounting to what he called a “sham production.” Tobin emphasized that the lopsided disclosure has left the entire discovery process “entirely one-sided.”

    Alejandro Brito, lead counsel for Trump, pushed back against the BBC’s document requests, describing them as overly broad, oppressive, and a “fishing expedition” designed to harass former Trump administration officials rather than obtain legitimate evidence. Brito argued that the network’s demands for records of conversations between Trump and his aides related to the Capitol riot, as well as subpoenas issued to federal agencies and former White House officials, go far beyond the scope of the defamation claim.

    Much of Trump’s legal argument centered on a November 2024 letter sent by BBC Chairman Samir Shah to Trump. In the letter, Shah apologized for the edited clip, acknowledging that it unintentionally created the “mistaken impression that President Trump made a direct call for violent action.” Brito framed the letter as a clear admission of fault and concession by the BBC, bolstering Trump’s defamation claim.

    The BBC has already filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit, arguing that the *Panorama* documentary in question was never broadcast to audiences in the United States, meaning it cannot form the basis of a defamation claim under U.S. law. The court has not yet issued a ruling on that dismissal motion.

  • Iran war has cost US $37.5bn so far, Hegseth says

    Iran war has cost US $37.5bn so far, Hegseth says

    A critical congressional hearing on U.S. military funding for ongoing hostilities in Iran devolved into repeated disruptions Tuesday, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed lawmakers to approve an $87 billion emergency funding request amid growing partisan division and mounting war costs.

    In his first appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee since U.S.-Iran hostilities resumed earlier this month, Hegseth revealed that total U.S. spending on the conflict has now reached $37.5 billion — an $8.5 billion jump from the last official estimate published in mid-May. Of the total funding he is requesting, Hegseth earmarked $67 billion specifically for Middle East operations, warning that without swift congressional approval, core military operations would face crippling shortfalls. These cuts, he argued, would extend beyond training reductions to threaten the Pentagon’s ability to pay active-duty troops, replenish critical weapons and munitions, and sustain frontline operations without interruption.

    The hearing, held at a pivotal moment following the deaths of three U.S. service members in the region in recent days, was interrupted multiple times by anti-war activists, who shouted calls for an end to U.S. bombing campaigns in both Iran and Palestine before being removed from the room. Hegseth pushed past the disruptions to frame his request as an urgent, generational investment to maintain U.S. military dominance, arguing that “bold and swift action” is required to counter adversarial advances that could leave the U.S. playing catch-up. He framed every dollar of the requested funding as an investment in increasing U.S. military lethality and upholding the principle of “peace through strength.”

    His testimony quickly turned into a partisan clash, as Democratic lawmakers pushed back hard against the request, arguing that the Trump administration was attempting to bypass standard congressional budget procedures to secure unrestricted war funding while American households struggle with domestic economic pressures. “It does not make a lot of sense,” Senate’s top Democrat on the committee Patty Murray said of the request, echoing comments from New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who criticized the administration for asking for “unlimited money for bombs” while many U.S. citizens cannot afford to feed their families. Gillibrand also pressed Hegseth on a contradiction: why the administration was asking for billions more for a war that President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed was already won. Hegseth defended the request, responding simply that he was asking for “the right bombs at the right time.” He also blamed the prior Biden administration for leaving the U.S. military with a legacy of underfunding, arguing that current gaps are a result of past mismanagement.

    The $37.5 billion total cost figure revealed Tuesday marks the first updated official accounting of war spending in more than two months. When last measured in May, the estimated cost stood at $29 billion, with the Pentagon reporting $11.3 billion in spending in the conflict’s first week alone. The current round of hostilities comes after a brief April ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran collapsed just over a week ago, with both sides launching sustained retaliatory strikes across the region. Monday marked the 10th consecutive day of U.S. airstrikes, with Iran launching reciprocal attacks against U.S. forces and regional allies.

    The request also faces headwinds from within Republican ranks, where fiscal conservative lawmakers are pushing for offsetting spending cuts to domestic programs to cover the war allocation. Compounding the legislative gridlock is the impending congressional recess: the House is set to adjourn Thursday, and both chambers will not return for joint session until September. Even if Republican leaders can round up enough votes to pass the request, that means the Pentagon will face a months-long delay before accessing any emergency funds.

    The hearing unfolded as the U.S. military confirmed three recent combat-related deaths in the region, bringing the total number of U.S. service members killed in the conflict since it began February 28 to 18, a figure confirmed by President Trump in a post on social media Tuesday. On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced the death of 30-year-old active-duty Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, who was supporting operations in Iraq. That announcement followed confirmation Monday of two additional deaths: 19-year-old Private First Class Isabella Gonzales and 25-year-old First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, both killed in action in Jordan.

    The $87 billion request is part of a broader Pentagon budget proposal that would push U.S. military spending to a modern-era all-time high. The White House initially requested a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget for the upcoming fiscal year back in April, setting the stage for what is expected to be a bitter fight over national spending priorities as lawmakers return from recess this fall.

  • Ed Miliband, the new UK foreign secretary, on Israel, Iraq, Syria and Iran

    Ed Miliband, the new UK foreign secretary, on Israel, Iraq, Syria and Iran

    Nearly two decades after entering Parliament and 16 years after stepping down as Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband has landed one of the UK’s most senior government posts: new Prime Minister Andy Burnham has named him the country’s next foreign secretary. Once the early favorite to take the chancellor role, the appointment marks a major career milestone for the veteran Labour politician, who brings a deeply documented record of progressive international positions to the role.

    In his first remarks after accepting the post, Miliband framed the appointment through the lens of his family history, noting his parents arrived in the UK as Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. “To them, Britain was both a sanctuary and a beacon of hope in the global fight against fascism,” he said. “I will carry my parents’ faith in that spirit of Britain to my role representing our country.” Outlining his core priorities, Miliband warned the world is currently facing higher levels of instability and more severe threats to international law and democratic norms than at any point since the end of World War II. He pledged to prioritize rebuilding and strengthening partnerships with the European Union, deepen collaboration with core multilateral bodies including NATO and the United Nations, and expand working ties with Global South nations. Miliband also laid out key policy commitments: the UK will remain steadfast in its support for Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion, work toward de-escalating conflict in Iran and secure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and pursue a lasting, sustainable two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

    While Miliband has never served in a senior foreign policy role before, he has been a vocal, unapologetic voice on international issues for nearly 20 years, with a series of high-stakes votes and public positions that have shaped his reputation as a cautious critic of unplanned Western military intervention. The outlet Middle East Eye has examined his track record, which stretches back to the early 2000s, to contextualize the new foreign secretary’s likely approach to global affairs.

    Miliband entered the House of Commons as MP for Doncaster North in 2005, two years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, meaning he never cast a vote on the 2003 decision. When he rose to become Labour leader in 2010, defeating his older brother David Miliband — a proponent of the Iraq war who served as foreign secretary under Gordon Brown — Ed used his clear opposition to the conflict to distance his leadership from predecessors Tony Blair and Brown. In his debut speech to the Labour Party conference as leader, Miliband said the Iraq war had caused a “fundamental loss of trust” in the party. “I criticise nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and I honour our troops who fought and died there, but I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war,” he told the gathering. The moment caused deep rifts in the Parliamentary Labour Party: David Miliband, who supported the invasion, was caught on camera scolding senior Labour figure Harriet Harman for applauding the speech, and other senior party figures including Andy Burnham, who also voted for the war, refused to join the applause. Later, the landmark 2016 Chilcot Inquiry into the conflict confirmed that Blair’s decision to join the US invasion, based on claims that Saddam Hussein held weapons of mass destruction, rested on “flawed intelligence” and that the 2003 invasion was a key contributing factor to the eventual rise of the Islamic State group.

    The defining foreign policy moment of Miliband’s Labour leadership came in 2013, when then-Prime Minister David Cameron sought parliamentary approval for British military strikes against the Bashar al-Assad regime following Assad’s chemical weapons attack on civilian populations during the Syrian civil war. Miliband rallied nearly all of his Labour MPs to oppose the motion, joined by rebel Conservative and Liberal Democrat lawmakers, handing Cameron’s government an unprecedented defeat on a major foreign policy question. At the time, the Obama administration in the US was preparing to launch its own military intervention to enforce a declared “red line” on chemical weapons use, but ultimately pulled back from action. US officials later confirmed the UK parliamentary vote derailed Washington’s intervention plans.

    Assad’s brutal regime finally collapsed in December 2024 following a rapid offensive by opposition forces. When asked shortly after the fall of Assad whether he regretted his 2013 position, Miliband made clear he stood by his decision. “No. First of all, I very much welcome the fall of President Assad, who is a brutal dictator,” he said. “The decision I was confronted with, though, in 2013 was whether we did a bombing of President Assad without any clear plan for British military engagement, where it would lead and what it would mean. And I believe then, and I do now, that one of the most important lessons of the Iraq war is we shouldn’t go into military intervention without a clear plan, including an exit strategy.” Still, some high-profile British foreign policy commentators have argued his role in the 2013 Syria vote disqualifies him from the top foreign affairs role. Writing for The Telegraph, chief foreign affairs commentator David Blair argued Miliband’s role in that outcome should have convinced Burnham to pass him over for the post.

    On Israeli-Palestinian affairs, Miliband has a long-held, consistent stance of supporting Israel’s right to exist while backing Palestinian statehood and calling out excessive civilian harm during military operations. In 2014, amid Israel’s 50-day ground invasion of Gaza that killed more than 2,200 Palestinians, most of them civilians, Miliband labeled Israel’s actions “unacceptable and unjustifiable,” and called on Cameron’s Conservative government to take a stronger public stance against the offensive. While he unequivocally condemned Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, he said the violence could not excuse the mass civilian death toll, and called for an immediate ceasefire. That same year, he rallied all Labour MPs to vote in a symbolic parliamentary motion supporting British recognition of a Palestinian state. A year later, he told the Jewish Chronicle he considered himself a “strong friend of Israel” and opposed boycotts of the country, noting that “friends will disagree from time to time but it doesn’t in any way change my deep belief that we should seek to restart the negotiations, that we should have no tolerance with those who question the legitimacy of the state of Israel.” Most recently, when Keir Starmer was prime minister last year, British media reports identified Miliband as one of the leading cabinet voices pushing the government to formally recognize Palestinian statehood, a step the UK ultimately took in September 2025.

    Miliband has also been a vocal critic of US President Donald Trump, a stance that will shape his new role as the UK’s top diplomat. Shortly after Trump’s first election victory in 2016, Miliband told the BBC: “The idea that we have shared values with a racist, misogynistic self-confessed groper beggars belief.” A year later, he wrote on social media that Trump had “lowered the bar for idiocy.” When the US and Israel launched military action against Iran in late February 2026, Miliband was among the most prominent senior Labour figures opposing any UK military involvement in the conflict. Reports at the time confirmed Miliband, alongside Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper, strongly pushed against British participation, with a source telling the Spectator Miliband “fundamentally doesn’t like Trump, and he doesn’t like this Iran thing.” Starmer ultimately chose not to join the military action, a decision that created a major public rift between the former prime minister and Trump.

    The report comes from Middle East Eye, an independent outlet specializing in coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region.

  • The new commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces forged his reputation fighting Russia in 2014

    The new commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces forged his reputation fighting Russia in 2014

    KYIV, Ukraine — In a major shakeup to Ukraine’s top military leadership that comes on the heels of widespread public unrest over stalled military reform, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has tapped 43-year-old Maj. Gen. Mykhailo Drapatyi to serve as the country’s new commander-in-chief. The appointment Tuesday follows the dismissal of former chief Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, who was pushed out after days of mass demonstrations across Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities.

    Protesters took to the streets demanding Syrskyi’s removal and calling for the reinstatement of former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, a figure widely credited as a key catalyst for sweeping Ukrainian military modernization. Demonstrators framed Syrskyi as the face of the military’s outdated, Soviet-era top-down command culture, a system that many Ukrainians argue has hampered battlefield effectiveness and slowed much-needed structural reform.

    In his first public statement following the appointment, Drapatyi extended recognition to his predecessor in a Facebook post, thanking Syrskyi for his work strengthening Ukraine’s armed forces. “I grew up in it,” Drapatyi said of the Ukrainian military, adding: “I will work responsibly, with focus and with respect for the people defending our state today.”

    Unlike older generations of Ukrainian military leaders who cut their teeth in the Soviet-era armed forces, Drapatyi is a product of the 10-year-long war with Russia that began in 2014, and his entire professional career has been shaped by frontline combat experience. He most recently served as commander of Ukraine’s Joint Forces, the unified command structure that oversees daily cross-branch combat operations along all fronts of the war with Russia.

    Widely described by peers and observers as intensely disciplined and extraordinarily effective in high-stakes combat scenarios, Drapatyi has a long track record of being deployed to stabilize the most unstable, pressure-cooker sectors of the frontline. Though he maintains a low public profile, he has built broad respect and growing popularity both within the armed forces and among the Ukrainian public for a string of notable battlefield victories stretching back a decade.

    Drapatyi first made his name as a daring young officer in 2014, during the opening months of Russia’s incursion into eastern Ukraine. That May, then a major leading a battalion within Ukraine’s 72nd Brigade, he orchestrated a high-risk armored rescue mission into central Mariupol to extract a group of police officers and territorial defense leaders who had been trapped and besieged by pro-Russian militants, who had threatened to burn the captured group alive.

    When the column’s path forward was blocked by a barricade standing more than a meter high, Drapatyi — riding in the lead vehicle — ordered his driver to accelerate directly at the obstacle. The armored vehicle cleared the barrier like a vehicle launching off a ramp, a dramatic moment captured on camera that quickly spread across social media and became one of the most iconic stories of Ukraine’s early resistance. The bold action stood out dramatically in 2014, when the Ukrainian military was still poorly equipped, largely untested in large-scale combat, and deeply hesitant to authorize decisive, independent actions by field commanders that could risk escalating tensions with Moscow.

    Just months after the Mariupol rescue, Drapatyi led his battalion through another harrowing test of leadership when the unit was encircled by Russian-backed separatist forces near the Ukraine-Russia border for weeks. Rather than surrendering and agreeing to disarm to walk free, Drapatyi organized a nighttime breakout, successfully leading all 260 of his soldiers and more than 30 vehicles out of the encirclement to safety.

    Over the decade that followed, Drapatyi climbed steadily through the ranks of field command, leading multiple brigades across eastern Ukraine before taking up the post of deputy commander of the Joint Forces when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In 2024, he led the force that halted a major Russian advance on Zelenskyy’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, helped push Russian troops back from occupied territories in the Kherson region, and later organized the defensive line that blunted a renewed Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region later that same year. By the end of 2024, Zelenskyy appointed him to serve as commander of the Ukrainian Ground Forces.

    His tenure in that role was cut short, however, after a Russian missile strike on a ground forces training center killed dozens of Ukrainian soldiers, the second deadly attack on the same facility in just a few months. Drapatyi resigned from the post immediately, taking personal responsibility for the tragedy and saying he had failed to ensure his orders for improved security were fully implemented. In his resignation letter, he alleged that attempts to reform the ground forces branch had been blocked by entrenched officials protecting one another from accountability.

    Shortly after his resignation, Zelenskyy appointed Drapatyi to lead the Joint Forces command, setting the stage for his promotion to commander-in-chief this week.

    Drapatyi’s reputation as an uncompromising advocate for military reform became public knowledge earlier this week, when former Defense Minister Fedorov claimed that Ukraine’s old military leadership had systematically pushed back against reform and pressured commanders who advocated for change — including Drapatyi, who Fedorov said received three formal reprimands from Syrskyi for his reform efforts.

    Drapatyi later responded to the claims in a social media post, where he expressed backing for the current Defense Ministry leadership while also agreeing with Fedorov’s core critique: that many critical reforms have only been implemented “despite the system, rather than thanks to how it worked.” He added that a commander’s silence “has never been a form of responsibility.”

    Born in 1982 in the western Ukrainian city of Kamianets-Podilskyi, located in the Khmelnytskyi region, Drapatyi grew up in a family of public school teachers. He trained as a tank officer at the Kharkiv Institute of Tank Troops, graduating in 2004 before receiving his first posting to the 72nd Separate Mechanized Brigade in Bila Tserkva — a unit that was then commanded by the now-dismissed Oleksandr Syrskyi.

  • Zelensky sacks army chief Syrsky after days of protests

    Zelensky sacks army chief Syrsky after days of protests

    In a major shakeup to Ukraine’s top military leadership that follows days of public unrest, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced the dismissal of Oleksandr Syrsky, the country’s Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The 60-year-old Soviet-trained commander, who had held the post only since early 2024, will be replaced by Mykhailo Drapaty, the current head of Ukraine’s Joint Forces Command, Zelensky confirmed via an official post on Telegram Tuesday.

    Syrsky is one of Ukraine’s most seasoned military figures, best known for leading the successful defense of Kyiv during the opening weeks of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. But his tenure became increasingly contentious following Zelensky’s removal of 35-year-old Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov earlier this month, a young reformer who had gained widespread public popularity for his work modernizing Ukraine’s fighting forces. Fedorov, who was ousted just six months after taking on the defense portfolio, directly accused Syrsky of undermining his reform agenda, blocking his policy initiatives, and pressuring Zelensky to remove him from office – claims Syrsky rejected outright.

    Fedotov’s dismissal sparked thousands of protests across Ukraine, with demonstrators voicing frustration over stalled military reforms and openly calling for Syrsky to step down. For a period, Zelensky, who has long been wary of potential political rivals within the military leadership, resisted growing pressure to remove Syrsky. Analysts speaking to Agence France-Presse note that unlike Syrsky’s predecessor Valery Zaluzhny, an extremely popular commander who posed a perceived political threat to Zelensky, Syrsky never represented a direct political challenge. Still, he faced widespread criticism from reform advocates over his reluctance to overhaul military procurement, equipment distribution, and mobilization systems, as well as accusations that he had not done enough to prevent excessive troop casualties.

    The incoming commander, 43-year-old Drapaty, is a decorated Major General with deep combat experience stretching back to the start of the Donbas war in 2014. He rose to national fame after a widely shared video showed him ramming an armored vehicle through a pro-Russian separatist checkpoint in Mariupol during the early 2014 skirmishes. Drapaty has previously commanded Ukraine’s Ground Forces and built a reputation as a combat-hardened, forward-thinking leader. In a Facebook post confirming his appointment, Drapaty emphasized the weight of his new role, writing: “Serving Ukraine has always been an honour for me, and during the war for independence it means absolute responsibility. Glory to the nation. Death to the enemies.”

    Fedorov, the ousted defense minister whose removal triggered the unrest, has welcomed Drapaty’s appointment, framing it as a positive shift for Ukraine’s war effort. “This is a breath of fresh air and a new hope in the struggle of free people for freedom and justice,” Fedorov said on social media.

    The leadership reshuffle comes at a pivotal moment in the war. In recent months, Ukrainian forces have successfully slowed Russian territorial advances to a near standstill, while long-range Ukrainian strikes have targeted key Russian oil infrastructure, including multiple refineries that Kyiv says directly fuel Russia’s invasion campaign. At the same time, both sides have ramped up aerial strikes across frontline and rear areas, with the United Nations reporting a sharp spike in civilian casualties in Ukraine over the past two months. Drapaty’s appointment makes him the third person to hold the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

  • Canada’s Carney faces tough choice on US trade – fight back or hold steady

    Canada’s Carney faces tough choice on US trade – fight back or hold steady

    Just days after a cordial public appearance alongside their Mexican counterpart at the 2026 World Cup final in New Jersey, a surprise trade escalation has upended relations between the United States and Canada – one of America’s closest long-term trading partners.

    On Monday, mere hours after photographers captured US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney smiling and conversing in the stadium stands during the final match of the co-hosted North American World Cup (a tournament that has been broadly deemed a success despite widespread criticism of exorbitant ticket prices and travel costs), the Trump administration announced a sweeping new round of 50% tariffs on a quirky range of Canadian goods, spanning from hockey sticks to candles and synthetic wigs. The levies are scheduled to go into effect on August 19.

    The sudden announcement arrives at a pivotal moment for North American trade: after months of stop-start negotiations to renew the trilateral United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), talks are finally back on track. Just this week, the long-delayed Gordie Howe International Bridge – a critical infrastructure project designed to boost cross-border trade between the automotive hubs of Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan – is set to open, after Canada agreed to revised revenue-sharing terms with the US. Prior recent threats, including tariffs on Canadian civilian aircraft and demands for restitution over wildfire smoke drifting south from Canada, were widely written off as empty political posturing from Trump.

    Washington has framed the new tariffs as a response to what it calls “unequal treatment” of American automobiles, dairy products and alcohol in the Canadian market. Trade analysts and insiders, however, widely interpret the move as a calculated pressure tactic to force Canada into concessions on the stalled USMCA renewal talks.

    “This is nothing more than a strong-arm play from the Trump administration to gain maximum leverage ahead of a final deal,” explained Mahmood Nanji, a fellow at Western University’s Ivey Business School, in an interview with the BBC. “He’s pulling every trick out of the book to tilt the negotiations in his favor.”

    Stakeholders tracking the trade negotiations have not been caught completely off guard. US officials have repeatedly vented publicly about their frustration with Canada’s existing retaliatory tariffs, noting that Canada is the only country besides China that has maintained countermeasures against previous US levies. Candace Laing, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged in a statement that her organization had anticipated trade talks would get rockier before reaching a final resolution.

    This latest move marks a significant escalation of the ongoing trade friction between the two neighbors, stacking new barriers on top of existing trade restrictions. The US already imposes tariffs ranging from 15% to 50% on Canadian steel, aluminum and copper, a 35% duty on Canadian softwood lumber, and a 25% tax on non-US automotive parts. In response, Canada has levied its own 25% counter-tariffs on select US imports of steel, aluminum and vehicles, and most Canadian provinces pulled American alcohol products from store shelves last year. Canada is currently seeking relief from these existing sectoral tariffs as part of the ongoing USMCA talks.

    The timing also adds extra pressure on Prime Minister Carney: parallel US trade talks with Mexico are progressing far faster than negotiations with Ottawa, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is in Mexico this week for a new round of formal discussions. Last week, Greer told the Aspen Security Forum that while US negotiators speak weekly with their Canadian counterparts, “we just haven’t seen a lot of movement” on key sticking points.

    The US was also the only party to decline an immediate long-term renewal of the USMCA – the agreement that underpins roughly $2 trillion in annual trilateral trade – this month. Without a long-term extension, the deal will enter a cycle of annual reviews before expiring in 10 years.

    The new tariff announcement also signals that the Trump administration is gearing up for a broader expansion of global tariffs, analysts warn. Canada has historically been an early target for US trade actions that are later expanded globally, making it a key indicator of future American trade policy direction. On Tuesday, Greer appeared to confirm this trajectory, telling CNBC that more global US tariffs would be announced soon, though he declined to share a specific timeline, citing obligations to brief Congress and stakeholders first.

    In response to the announcement, Carney told reporters Tuesday that he had already spoken with Trump, and the two leaders had agreed to intensify ongoing trade talks. Carney stressed that Canada would “explore all possible response options” if the new tariffs take effect next month, and reaffirmed his long-standing position that “no deal is better than a bad deal” on trade, while noting that Canada’s core goal remains reaching a comprehensive, mutually beneficial agreement. The prime minister is scheduled to meet with Canadian provincial premiers Tuesday afternoon to coordinate a response to the new US pressure, and some provincial leaders are already pushing for a strong retaliation.

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford, one of the most vocal Canadian critics of Trump’s trade agenda, said Tuesday: “We can’t keep rolling over, we can’t keep backing down, we have to go full tilt.” Lawrence Herman, a trade expert with the independent Canadian think tank CD Howe Institute, echoed that call, arguing that making concessions now to appease Washington would be a strategic mistake that damages Canada’s national pride and global standing.

    Public opinion polling suggests Carney has broad public support to take a hard line. Pollster David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data, notes that most Canadians have already grown accustomed to weathering trade disputes with the Trump administration, and deep distrust of Washington is widespread. “Most Canadians hold the view that they cannot trust the Trump administration,” Coletto explained. “There is deep anger over what the public sees as unfair treatment from the US, and most people do not want Prime Minister Carney to give in.” The latest tariff move, he added, has only hardened that public resolve.

    As the August 19 implementation deadline approaches, Canada faces difficult choices: Nanji argues that Canada may need to concede on some remaining sticking points to secure long-term trade certainty, but Ottawa must also clearly define its red lines. While Canada is currently signaling calm and avoiding panic, Nanji says a breaking point could be reached soon. “Canada will likely retaliate, but right now they’re trying to stay cool and avoid escalation,” he said. “But there will come a point where we have to draw a line: you cannot cross this.”

  • Aoun seeks Trump backing for Israel pullback as south Lebanon ‘pilot zones’ begin

    Aoun seeks Trump backing for Israel pullback as south Lebanon ‘pilot zones’ begin

    As the first phase of a US-mediated truce framework between Lebanon and Israel kicks off in southern Lebanon, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has arrived in Washington for a landmark meeting with US President Donald Trump — a diplomatic trip widely billed as the most consequential of his young presidency.

    This White House summit marks the first visit by a sitting Lebanese head of state to the US presidential residence in nearly 20 years. It comes more than a decade after the highest-level previous meeting between a Lebanese leader and a US president, when then-Prime Minister Saad Hariri hosted talks with Barack Obama in 2011. Ahead of his Tuesday sit-down with Trump, Aoun held an initial working meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday, where Rubio reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to upholding the June trilateral framework agreement and backing Lebanon’s push to deliver lasting security and improved livelihoods to its citizens.

    Aoun’s trip comes on the heels of six rounds of US-mediated direct negotiations between Beirut and Jerusalem aimed at ending their ongoing conflict. The fifth round, held in Washington, produced the foundational framework agreement on June 26, while the sixth and most recent round of talks concluded last week in Rome.

    For the Lebanese presidency, this visit is far more than a routine diplomatic gesture. Sources close to Baabda Palace told Middle East Eye that Lebanese officials spent months working to secure the high-profile meeting, framing it as a critical opportunity to bolster Aoun’s domestic political standing and demonstrate that the direct negotiation process can deliver tangible progress.

    Per those close to Aoun, his core argument is that diplomacy can deliver outcomes that years of open conflict have failed to achieve: a permanent end to hostilities, the safe return of displaced Lebanese residents to their southern homes, the full deployment of the Lebanese armed forces across the border region, and a full Israeli pullback from occupied southern Lebanese territory — a step the framework text refers to as “redeployment” rather than an explicit withdrawal.

    Under the terms of the agreement, the Lebanese army will deploy to “pilot zones” that Israel has evacuated, with the military taking over responsibility for disarming Hezbollah fighters in the area. On Monday, US State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott confirmed that initial pilot operations had officially launched in three southern Lebanese villages: Froun, Srifa and Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh. The operations are being overseen by the newly created US-led Military Coordination Group for Lebanon. Shortly after the US announcement, the Lebanese army confirmed its units had begun moving into Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh following coordinated planning through the new oversight body. The military issued a public advisory urging civilian residents to avoid returning to the area until security is fully stabilized, and to follow all guidance from deployed troops.

    A senior Lebanese military official noted that security conditions vary across the three pilot zones. Froun and Srifa have never held a permanent physical Israeli troop presence, and the Lebanese army already maintains forward deployments there, though the areas still fall under Israeli military oversight and control. In contrast, Israeli forces still hold a physical presence in parts of Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, with the Lebanese army’s full deployment tied to ongoing incremental coordination through the US-led group.

    A senior Lebanese official briefed on Aoun’s Washington talks told Middle East Eye that US negotiators have shown receptiveness to Lebanon’s core demand: that visible, concrete steps from Israel are required to frame the framework as a mutual achievement for Lebanon, rather than a list of one-sided obligations for Beirut. During his meeting with Trump, Aoun is expected to urge the US president to leverage Washington’s extensive diplomatic and military influence over Israel to ensure full, timely implementation of the agreed pilot zone deployment.

    Yet Lebanese officials harbor lingering concerns that Israel will seek to slow implementation of the pilot program, adopting a gradual “wait-and-see” approach: it will first withdraw from Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, assess the Lebanese army’s success in removing Hezbollah infrastructure, and only then decide whether to proceed with redeployment from the remaining two zones. This staggered approach has deepened skepticism in Beirut that Israel intends to use the framework as a path to full withdrawal, or if it will instead leverage the process to test the Lebanese army’s capabilities, increase pressure on Hezbollah, and justify a permanent long-term military presence in what Israeli officials have framed as a necessary border security zone.

    The US-brokered framework has already deepened sharp domestic political divides within Lebanon. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has openly rejected the agreement, framing it as an unconditional surrender of Lebanese sovereignty and opposing any requirement that ties Israeli withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament. Other cross-party critics have pointed to the absence of the term “withdrawal” in the official agreement text and the lack of binding enforcement mechanisms to guarantee Israel complies with its obligations. Many Lebanese political figures have also criticized the deal for placing enforcement authority almost entirely in the hands of Washington — Israel’s closest and most powerful military and diplomatic ally. Prominent Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has further criticized the framework for failing to explicitly reference the 1949 Armistice Agreement, which Jumblatt argues remains the foundational legal basis for Lebanese-Israeli relations and is enshrined in Lebanon’s constitutional and government policy frameworks.

    Supporters of the agreement, however, push back that the framework formalizes Lebanon’s sovereign authority over its entire territory and creates a critical first stepping stone to restoring full state control across the south. Aoun’s domestic political base argues that even with heavy political costs, direct negotiations are the only viable available path to end the conflict and restore state authority to the border region.

    Aoun’s opponents, meanwhile, warn that the negotiation process will ultimately force unfavorable Israeli terms on Lebanon, erode the country’s legal and diplomatic bargaining power, and push the Lebanese army into a violent direct confrontation with Hezbollah. One Lebanese source briefed on the closed-door negotiations warned that the core risk of the current framework is that Israel will use any delay, minor friction, or incomplete Lebanese deployment as evidence that Beirut cannot uphold its end of the agreement. That outcome would allow Israel to claim that continued occupation of southern Lebanese territory is justified until the Lebanese state can prove it is capable of exercising full sovereign control and preventing Hezbollah from reestablishing its military presence in the border region.

    In short, Aoun’s Washington visit carries stakes that stretch far beyond the symbolic value of a White House photo opportunity. If Trump uses US leverage to press Israel for full, timely implementation of the pilot zones and commits to a clear timeline for full withdrawal, Aoun will return to Beirut with tangible proof that his high-stakes diplomatic bet has paid off. But if the implementation process stalls, or if Israel reframes the pilot zones as an open-ended test of the Lebanese army’s willingness to confront Hezbollah, the visit will only deepen the dangerous domestic political faultlines Aoun is seeking to manage.

    For Lebanon, this diplomatic push could mark the first step toward a negotiated end to years of conflict. But it could also set the country on an unavoidable collision course between Israeli security demands, US diplomatic pressure, Hezbollah’s non-negotiable red lines, and the already stretched institutional capacity of Lebanon’s fragile government.

  • Zelensky sacks Ukraine’s top army commander after days of protests

    Zelensky sacks Ukraine’s top army commander after days of protests

    In a sudden shake-up of Ukraine’s top military leadership that comes on the heels of widespread public unrest following a previous high-level dismissal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has removed Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi from his post. The leadership change unfolds just days after Zelensky ousted popular Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, a move that already prompted spontaneous street demonstrations across multiple Ukrainian cities.

    Early speculation that tensions between Fedorov and Syrskyi contributed to Fedorov’s departure from the defense ministry has since been officially confirmed. At 35 years old, Fedorov earned broad public and political acclaim during his tenure for his work revitalizing Ukraine’s defense apparatus, modernizing the country’s armed forces, and spearheading aggressive anti-corruption initiatives within the military establishment. In contrast, 60-year-old Syrskyi has long been framed by many Ukrainian observers and political figures as a commander trained in Soviet-era military doctrine, who has repeatedly resisted calls for sweeping, modernizing reforms to Ukraine’s military structure.

    In a social media statement published late Tuesday, Zelensky publicly acknowledged Syrskyi’s service to Ukraine, specifically highlighting his critical role leading the successful defense of Kyiv during the opening days of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, alongside his contributions to other key military campaigns. Syrskyi will be succeeded by Mykhailo Drapatyi, a well-respected battle-tested general who has already gained significant popular support across Ukraine. “All decisions will be formalised tomorrow,” Zelensky added in his social media post, leaving room for further details of the leadership reshuffle to be released in the coming 24 hours.

    The series of rapid leadership changes comes at a highly sensitive moment for Ukraine, as the country continues to grapple with the ongoing full-scale war with Russia, growing domestic pressure for military reform, and public scrutiny of corruption within the country’s defense sector. Analysts note that the dismissals signal a significant shift in Kyiv’s military leadership ahead of anticipated new frontline developments in the war.

  • Ukraine’s Zelenskyy fires military chief after protests and names a replacement

    Ukraine’s Zelenskyy fires military chief after protests and names a replacement

    KYIV, Ukraine — In a major shakeup to Ukraine’s military leadership amid widespread public pressure, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the dismissal of Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi from his post as commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces on Tuesday. The leadership change comes after multiple days of large-scale public demonstrations across Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, where demonstrators gathered explicitly to call for Gen. Syrskyi’s removal from the top military role.

    Shortly after confirming the dismissal via an official social media statement, Zelenskyy named Mykhailo Drapatyi as Syrskyi’s successor to lead the country’s armed forces.

    In remarks accompanying the leadership announcement, Zelenskyy emphasized that the core priority of Ukraine’s leadership and military remains unchanged: securing a full victory over invading Russian forces and shaping frontline conditions and international pressure strong enough to compel Russia to enter into negotiations for a just peace. “A significant path has been traveled, the defense of Ukraine continues, and every warrior deserves dignified treatment,” Zelenskyy added, reaffirming the country’s ongoing commitment to defending its territorial sovereignty and supporting its service members.

    The unexpected leadership shakeup marks one of the most high-profile changes to Ukraine’s military command structure in recent months, coming as the country continues to navigate a grinding war of attrition against Russian forces and shifting public sentiment over the progress of the conflict.

  • Russian warship asked to ‘clarify its intentions’ off British coast

    Russian warship asked to ‘clarify its intentions’ off British coast

    In a development that underscores rising regional military tensions in Northern European waters, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has obtained exclusive audio recording capturing a direct confrontation between a French military aircraft and a Russian warship operating off the United Kingdom’s coastline.

    The encounter unfolded when the Russian naval vessel entered the maritime area near the British coast, prompting regional military authorities to request that the warship clarify its operational intentions in the area. The recorded exchange, captured by the French aircrew patrolling the region, documents the back-and-forth communication between the French aircraft crew and the Russian warship’s command during the incident.

    This encounter comes amid a period of heightened military activity by Russian naval forces near the territorial waters of NATO member states in recent years. Defense analysts note that such close-quarters interactions between Russian military assets and Western military units have become more frequent, raising concerns about accidental escalation or miscalculation that could lead to unintended conflict.

    The BBC’s release of the exclusive audio provides a rare, unfiltered look at the kind of routine-but-tense interactions that play out over European waters as geopolitical tensions remain elevated between Russia and the Western alliance. Neither Russian defense officials nor NATO command have issued additional public comments on the specifics of this encounter beyond the exchanges captured in the recording.