US vs China over South China Sea: Washington backs Philippines, Beijing hits back

Bigg Boss 20: Isha Rikhi evicted after three weeks in Salman Khan’s show

Musk plans to more than double xAI's chips to over 1.2 million Nvidia GPUs by year-end

After JU, clash erupts at SRFTI: BJP’s ‘Dimagi Naxal’ jibe sparks political firestorm after students protest RSS-linked event

‘Anti-social elements spreading false rumours’: LPU issues statement amid massive unrest over alleged rape

LPU students go on rampage, vandalise campus amid widespread protest: What's happening

Trump asked Xi to pressure Iran. China did not say yes — here’s what Beijing wants

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hails global crackdown on Iranian banks and airlines

An OpenAI agent escaped its locked test cage again, by hiding questions in DNS lookups

'Our video was trimmed': LPU girls who featured in rape-denial video make U-turn

3 males killed, four others injured in shooting after fight at strip club in Detroit

'Victory for low-budget consumers': Raghav Chadha hails 30-day telecom recharge rules

Claude rebuilt the 1989 game 'Prince of Persia' by reusing the original's own code

Beyond metros: How Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities could drive India’s next AI wave

Tesla builds first Cybertruck with its own refined lithium: Elon Musk's $1 billion Texas bet pays off

IndiGo flight suffers tail strike in Bengaluru while landing; DGCA to probe incident

The US and China set up an AI 'red telephone', but skipped the rulebook

‘Terror suspects arrested near UK air base were looking to do big damage’: Trump

Russian envoy claims US tactics to contain India were revealed in ‘Freudian slip’

IND vs WI 1st ODI: Kohli breaks Sachin's most runs in one country record with unbeaten 139 as India thump West Indies by 8 wickets

Researchers rebuilt exactly how 700 AI agents hacked Hugging Face: a 900-link chain trick

‘Olympic inclusion is our major target’: WPA President Ishaun Singh on pool’s global ambitions

Nations League: Spain sink England at Wembley; Modric shines for Croatia

Why has Iran released no proof of life of Mojtaba Khamenei? Araghchi reveals...

'What kind of confession is this?': Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif’s 'terrorists would be roaming New York' remark goes viral, raises alarm online. Watch

South Korea demands apology from Ukraine over North Korean prisoners' transfer

Beyond BrahMos: India targets Rs 50,000 crore in defence exports with unmatched price edge

Sri Lankan Tamil migrant worker gets death sentence in Saudi Arabia, help sought from India

Muslim marriage cannot shield sex with minor wife from prosecution under POCSO: Delhi HC

'Can't help but draw painful parallels to Nirbhaya case': SC on latest incidents of rape cases in Delhi-NCR

99.9% more powerful - Scientists find boy who can recall memories from just 3 months of age

'FIRST LOOK from inside Noah’s Ark': Researchers share video from inside mysterious mound in Turkey

UNSC reform momentum grows: Russia, Portugal, Mauritius push for India's permanent seat bid

8 US marines injured in Iranian missile attack on vessel in Strait of Hormuz: Report

New OTT releases this week (September 28-October 4, 2026): Dupahiya 2, Pooja Meri Jaan, Ohh My Dog- 5 titles coming on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Afghanistan says 28 fighters killed in clash near Pakistan border, Islamabad denies

Ceuta migrant crisis: Protesters take to streets as Spain grapples with migrant challenge

LPU suspend classes, postpones exams as violence escalates over rape claims: What's happening

New York City wants a 'kill switch' on every AI, and will pay whistleblowers who report violations

India is the world's largest democracy. We take pride in being a beautifully diverse country, bound by the unifying thread of our Constitution. But today, India is staring at a situation where there are some who are questioning its democratic processes and others who are defending it. They say democracy is the people's will. So, what is the will of Indians?&nbsp;Is it what Rahul Gandhi and CJP are saying? Or is it aligned with the EC and the ruling BJP? Well, massive protests were seen in Delhi and Mumbai on Friday (October 2). Multiple metro stations and roads were blocked as protesters gathered to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Opposition doesn't have the numbers in Lok Sabha to get an impeachment motion passed against Gyanesh Kumar. That's the constitutional procedure to remove a CEC. So pressuring him to resign through protests is their way.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sir-row-over-700-including-aap-leaders-activists-detained-in-delhi-cjp-protests-at-mumbai-s-shivaji-park-1790936501641">SIR row: Over 700 including AAP leaders, activists detained near Jantar Mantar; CJP protests at Mumbai's Shivaji Park</a>&nbsp;This is not just a fight over one man. This is a test of whether India’s democracy can withstand scrutiny and whether its institutions are strong enough to answer difficult questions without fear. The BJP has every right to defend the institution. The Opposition has every right to question it. But citizens have an even greater right to a robust democracy. If the allegations are unfounded, prove them wrong. If there are procedural lapses, investigate them. If electoral rolls contain errors, correct them.&nbsp;Different parties rule different states of India, but regardless of who is in power, every citizen of India has the right to a healthy democracy. And so amid political fights on TV debates and large protests on ground, the credibility of India's democratic process must be upheld at any cost.

India’s democracy faces fresh scrutiny as opposition protests target CEC Gyanesh Kumar, raising questions over electoral processes and institutional trust

India is the world's largest democracy. We take pride in being a beautifully diverse country, bound by the unifying thread of our Constitution. But today, India is staring at a situation where there are some who are questioning its democratic processes and others who are defending it. They say democracy is the people's will. So, what is the will of Indians? Is it what Rahul Gandhi and CJP are saying? Or is it aligned with the EC and the ruling BJP? Well, massive protests were seen in Delhi and Mumbai on Friday (October 2). Multiple metro stations and roads were blocked as protesters gathered to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Opposition doesn't have the numbers in Lok Sabha to get an impeachment motion passed against Gyanesh Kumar. That's the constitutional procedure to remove a CEC. So pressuring him to resign through protests is their way. Also Read: SIR row: Over 700 including AAP leaders, activists detained near Jantar Mantar; CJP protests at Mumbai's Shivaji Park This is not just a fight over one man. This is a test of whether India’s democracy can withstand scrutiny and whether its institutions are strong enough to answer difficult questions without fear. The BJP has every right to defend the institution. The Opposition has every right to question it. But citizens have an even greater right to a robust democracy. If the allegations are unfounded, prove them wrong. If there are procedural lapses, investigate them. If electoral rolls contain errors, correct them. Different parties rule different states of India, but regardless of who is in power, every citizen of India has the right to a healthy democracy. And so amid political fights on TV debates and large protests on ground, the credibility of India's democratic process must be upheld at any cost.

Protests targeting CEC Gyanesh Kumar intensify India’s democracy debate, with opposition allegations, BJP’s defence and questions over electoral integrity

India’s democracy is being tested. Who will answer the tough questions?

When you talk with military theorists in China about the future of the art of war, they will not talk with you about tanks or even numbers of infantry. They were fixated on how quickly they could acquire, process, and act on information. This has had remarkable implications for the way the Chinese military, especially the People’s Liberation Army, has modernised its forces. It has happened in ways that have remained hidden, but it has fundamentally altered the strategic military balance in the world.<h2>The Silent Revolution of Reorganising Military Structure</h2>China did not reveal any plans to reorganise warfare via press releases or official statements. Rather, within a two-year span, there was a silent demolition, rebranding, and restructuring of command organisations. The reason why this was done was not due to bureaucratic reasons; rather, current organisational structures did not have the capability to process and relay information in the speed that is required in modern warfare. The inability to process and use information quickly became one of China's weak points in terms of military operations.The foundation of the revolution was laid out in December 2015 when China combined all the capabilities in space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare into one Strategic Support Force.But recognition was gained that even the revolutionary force could be subjected to bureaucracy. It was in April 2024 that China fundamentally reorganised this force by splitting it into three command forces: PLA Cyberspace Force, PLA Aerospace Force, and PLA Information Support Force. The dismantling of the Strategic Support Force happened because of the fact that the previous organisation, although novel in concept, became the victim of bureaucratic rigidity and inter-departmental wrangles which hindered the free exchange of information.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/spy-vs-spy-as-xi-meets-trump-a-12-year-history-of-us-china-espionage-accusations-wion-decodes-1790071582437">SPY VS SPY: As Xi meets Trump, a 12-year history of US-China espionage accusations | WION Decodes</a><h2>System Destruction Warfare</h2>Discipline known as "system destruction warfare" supports the organisational transformation in question. System destruction warfare is a completely different strategy as compared to traditional war theories based on attrition and force annihilation. As opposed to destroying the military forces of an adversary, the approach involves winning the war through severing ties that unite enemy's military organisations as whole.This strategy entails attacking the communications system, interfering with the sensors, and disturbing the command and control nodes. Even if this communication system is broken, the military structure of the opposing force will break down regardless of their weaponry. This strategy emphasises disruption over destruction, communication breakdown over elimination of the force. Contemporary military structures fail without being physically destroyed because of the absence of communication systems.<h2>Military Commands Information Integration</h2>The key component of the military transformation process in China is the Information Support Force. This organisation is in charge of integrating the information received from satellites and cyber and electronic warfare sensors into an overall picture of the battlefield. In principle, this integrated picture has to be made available for all commanders in all five regional theatre commands of China, just like it happens in the American Joint All-Domain Command and Control system.The evolution of infrastructure makes the above assumption plausible. It is evident that the satellite operators have observed the building of big ships for unmanned submarines in Shanghai shipyards. This proves that China is not restricted to the use of the defensive deployment of these technologies in their naval areas only.However, tensions still exist in regard to military autonomy and decision-making power. Despite the implication of “intelligentised warfare” in terms of high level of automation, Chinese discussion on PLA matters indicates significant reluctance in delegating the decision-making power to algorithmic system. The basic dilemma that remains unresolved lies in authorisation: who can authorise the execution of military actions after the algorithm gives recommendations for it? This issue has its political aspects since political party officers and military officers share decision-making power in China’s military establishment.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/us-vs-china-in-numbers-who-leads-in-economy-military-ai-trade-and-technology-1790186640646">US vs China in numbers: Who leads in economy, military, AI, trade and technology?</a><h2>Civilian Technology for Military Use</h2>China’s development of military AI is unique because it is different from the Western methods. It involves not only the utilisation of traditional defense contractors but also takes into account the military needs during civilian technology development from the beginning. Thus, the integration leads to “born dual use” technologies that are made for civilian use, such as e-commerce and delivery, and military use at once.<h2>Reframing the AI Race</h2>Popular accounts of an "AI arms race" fall apart on analysis. New analyses have shown China is about three months behind America in terms of open source artificial intelligence systems-not years, just months. Because warfighting platforms always take years to become operationally viable irrespective of origin, the small window is strategically insignificant. The real race is one of speed-which military organisation will bring effective systems online faster?Through restructuring its command system so as to guarantee that intelligence could be passed from detection to decision and action, quickly, China took the chance that organisational efficiency would prove superior to computational complexity on the battlefield.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-plans-robot-forts-against-america-on-south-china-sea-islands-1787161539394/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-plans-robot-forts-against-america-on-south-china-sea-islands-1787161539394/embed</a><h2>Technological Breakthroughs of the Space Domain</h2>The biggest military breakthroughs happen above Earth's atmosphere. According to the officials from the United States Space Force, Chinese satellites conducted "dogfighting maneouvers" in low Earth orbit, whereby five separate craft maneouvered in formation like an aerial dogfight. It has been noted officially that the technological gap between America and China has closed much sooner than expected.Analysis from the Secure World Foundation indicated that China has built one of the world’s most robust space defense systems and has surpassed the US in terms of direct ascent and co-orbital anti-satellite technology. It released unmanned space planes with satellites which were able to fly next to, circle around, and finally rejoin their spacecraft. Other sources confirm the existence of ground-based lasers which can disrupt the optical sensors of the satellites. Since GPS systems, banking systems, weather forecasts, and emergency communications rely on unprotected satellites, this is an area of great vulnerability for every country.<h2>Positioning of Cyber Operations and Infrastructure</h2>If space is one of the domains that China is more visible on militarily, then cyberspace is one of the domains that China is more patient in. Investigators from America who were looking into the Volt Typhoon (state-affiliated cyber group working for the PLA) found out that there was sophisticated positioning of infrastructure instead of stealing of data.<h2>Humanoid Robots &amp; Field Testing</h2>While humanoid robot production by China has been renowned in terms of entertaining videos, there has emerged military interest. Investigations on the documents of PLA procurement showed that there was military experimentation involving humanoid robots for use in security and surveillance operations, with an emphasis on cooperation between man and machine. Ninety-five percent of the total global production of humanoid robots in 2025 came from Chinese manufacturers. State-owned manufacturer Norinco unveiled the Fuxi humanoid robot for security and surveillance operations.The tests conducted in March saw the PLA Navy conduct operational trials of autonomous surface vessel swarms. According to naval literature, the underwater drones were working non-stop for more than thirty days through AI-based acoustic recognition. The demonstrations made in August involved the use of AI-based air campaign planning systems to plan the whole aerial mission. According to US Army analysts, China can surpass US Intelligentised Warfare by 2030.<h2>The Speed of Information Over the Speed of Hardware</h2>Accumulation-China's military revolution is, at its very essence, a transformation of its organisational nervous system designed to process information without any delay. This is an organisational nervous system composed of civilian technology firms, autonomous systems, and the reorganisation of command authority within a framework where decisions are taken at the speed of processing information.&nbsp;

China is quietly redesigning how its military fights — shifting the focus from simply building more weapons to processing battlefield information faster. From AI and satellites to cyber warfare, the PLA is betting on speed, integration and information dominance. Dr. Nishakant Ojha explains.

When you talk with military theorists in China about the future of the art of war, they will not talk with you about tanks or even numbers of infantry. They were fixated on how quickly they could acquire, process, and act on information. This has had remarkable implications for the way the Chinese military, especially the People’s Liberation Army, has modernised its forces. It has happened in ways that have remained hidden, but it has fundamentally altered the strategic military balance in the world. The Silent Revolution of Reorganising Military Structure China did not reveal any plans to reorganise warfare via press releases or official statements. Rather, within a two-year span, there was a silent demolition, rebranding, and restructuring of command organisations. The reason why this was done was not due to bureaucratic reasons; rather, current organisational structures did not have the capability to process and relay information in the speed that is required in modern warfare. The inability to process and use information quickly became one of China's weak points in terms of military operations. The foundation of the revolution was laid out in December 2015 when China combined all the capabilities in space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare into one Strategic Support Force. But recognition was gained that even the revolutionary force could be subjected to bureaucracy. It was in April 2024 that China fundamentally reorganised this force by splitting it into three command forces: PLA Cyberspace Force, PLA Aerospace Force, and PLA Information Support Force. The dismantling of the Strategic Support Force happened because of the fact that the previous organisation, although novel in concept, became the victim of bureaucratic rigidity and inter-departmental wrangles which hindered the free exchange of information. Also read | SPY VS SPY: As Xi meets Trump, a 12-year history of US-China espionage accusations | WION Decodes System Destruction Warfare Discipline known as "system destruction warfare" supports the organisational transformation in question. System destruction warfare is a completely different strategy as compared to traditional war theories based on attrition and force annihilation. As opposed to destroying the military forces of an adversary, the approach involves winning the war through severing ties that unite enemy's military organisations as whole. This strategy entails attacking the communications system, interfering with the sensors, and disturbing the command and control nodes. Even if this communication system is broken, the military structure of the opposing force will break down regardless of their weaponry. This strategy emphasises disruption over destruction, communication breakdown over elimination of the force. Contemporary military structures fail without being physically destroyed because of the absence of communication systems. Military Commands Information Integration The key component of the military transformation process in China is the Information Support Force. This organisation is in charge of integrating the information received from satellites and cyber and electronic warfare sensors into an overall picture of the battlefield. In principle, this integrated picture has to be made available for all commanders in all five regional theatre commands of China, just like it happens in the American Joint All-Domain Command and Control system. The evolution of infrastructure makes the above assumption plausible. It is evident that the satellite operators have observed the building of big ships for unmanned submarines in Shanghai shipyards. This proves that China is not restricted to the use of the defensive deployment of these technologies in their naval areas only. However, tensions still exist in regard to military autonomy and decision-making power. Despite the implication of “intelligentised warfare” in terms of high level of automation, Chinese discussion on PLA matters indicates significant reluctance in delegating the decision-making power to algorithmic system. The basic dilemma that remains unresolved lies in authorisation: who can authorise the execution of military actions after the algorithm gives recommendations for it? This issue has its political aspects since political party officers and military officers share decision-making power in China’s military establishment. Also read | US vs China in numbers: Who leads in economy, military, AI, trade and technology? Civilian Technology for Military Use China’s development of military AI is unique because it is different from the Western methods. It involves not only the utilisation of traditional defense contractors but also takes into account the military needs during civilian technology development from the beginning. Thus, the integration leads to “born dual use” technologies that are made for civilian use, such as e-commerce and delivery, and military use at once. Reframing the AI Race Popular accounts of an "AI arms race" fall apart on analysis. New analyses have shown China is about three months behind America in terms of open source artificial intelligence systems-not years, just months. Because warfighting platforms always take years to become operationally viable irrespective of origin, the small window is strategically insignificant. The real race is one of speed-which military organisation will bring effective systems online faster? Through restructuring its command system so as to guarantee that intelligence could be passed from detection to decision and action, quickly, China took the chance that organisational efficiency would prove superior to computational complexity on the battlefield. https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-plans-robot-forts-against-america-on-south-china-sea-islands-1787161539394/embed Technological Breakthroughs of the Space Domain The biggest military breakthroughs happen above Earth's atmosphere. According to the officials from the United States Space Force, Chinese satellites conducted "dogfighting maneouvers" in low Earth orbit, whereby five separate craft maneouvered in formation like an aerial dogfight. It has been noted officially that the technological gap between America and China has closed much sooner than expected. Analysis from the Secure World Foundation indicated that China has built one of the world’s most robust space defense systems and has surpassed the US in terms of direct ascent and co-orbital anti-satellite technology. It released unmanned space planes with satellites which were able to fly next to, circle around, and finally rejoin their spacecraft. Other sources confirm the existence of ground-based lasers which can disrupt the optical sensors of the satellites. Since GPS systems, banking systems, weather forecasts, and emergency communications rely on unprotected satellites, this is an area of great vulnerability for every country. Positioning of Cyber Operations and Infrastructure If space is one of the domains that China is more visible on militarily, then cyberspace is one of the domains that China is more patient in. Investigators from America who were looking into the Volt Typhoon (state-affiliated cyber group working for the PLA) found out that there was sophisticated positioning of infrastructure instead of stealing of data. Humanoid Robots & Field Testing While humanoid robot production by China has been renowned in terms of entertaining videos, there has emerged military interest. Investigations on the documents of PLA procurement showed that there was military experimentation involving humanoid robots for use in security and surveillance operations, with an emphasis on cooperation between man and machine. Ninety-five percent of the total global production of humanoid robots in 2025 came from Chinese manufacturers. State-owned manufacturer Norinco unveiled the Fuxi humanoid robot for security and surveillance operations. The tests conducted in March saw the PLA Navy conduct operational trials of autonomous surface vessel swarms. According to naval literature, the underwater drones were working non-stop for more than thirty days through AI-based acoustic recognition. The demonstrations made in August involved the use of AI-based air campaign planning systems to plan the whole aerial mission. According to US Army analysts, China can surpass US Intelligentised Warfare by 2030. The Speed of Information Over the Speed of Hardware Accumulation-China's military revolution is, at its very essence, a transformation of its organisational nervous system designed to process information without any delay. This is an organisational nervous system composed of civilian technology firms, autonomous systems, and the reorganisation of command authority within a framework where decisions are taken at the speed of processing information.

China is quietly redesigning how its military fights — shifting the focus from simply building more weapons to processing battlefield information faster. From AI and satellites to cyber warfare, the PLA is betting on speed, integration and information dominance. Dr. Nishakant Ojha explains.

China's military gamble: The information revolution in the PLA & China’s military future - a new strategy of speed over hardware

There are moments in life when there is no time to think about what should be done. There is only time to do what one has been trained to do. That is what makes the flydubai FZ1073 incident involving Indian Captain Smit Machchhar so powerful.&nbsp;On September 30, the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight carrying 174 passengers descended rapidly after an alleged confrontation in the cockpit in which Machchhar was seriously injured. Despite his injuries, the Indian captain managed to unlock the cockpit door, enabling passengers and other pilots on board to intervene. The aircraft was eventually brought under control and diverted safely to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft reportedly descended nearly 14,000 feet in less than 30 seconds.&nbsp;The story is still subject to investigation, including the motive behind the confrontation. But one fact is already clear: when a situation moved far beyond normal procedures, human courage and trained responses mattered enormously.&nbsp;Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost. Yet, instead of surrendering to panic, he took an action that allowed others to enter the cockpit and help regain control.&nbsp;That is where the incident becomes a lesson for global civilisation.<h2>A Hero Recognised Across Borders</h2>&nbsp;The extraordinary response to Machchhar's actions has crossed national boundaries.Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Captain Machchhar a “HERO”, saying that despite being seriously injured, he showed “immense courage” and an “unwavering resolve to protect the lives of others”. Modi said his valour helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy, adding that India was proud of him and praying for his recovery.&nbsp;President Droupadi Murmu similarly praised his “heroic courage and incredible presence of mind”. She said that even after being seriously injured in a moment of grave peril, Machchhar remained determined to protect others, and that his bravery and quick response helped prevent a major tragedy. She concluded: “I salute his indomitable spirit.”&nbsp;US President Donald Trump also described Machchhar as a hero while discussing the incident. Trump said that despite being in very bad shape, the pilot's decision to open the cockpit door was heroic and enabled others to intervene.&nbsp;Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Machchhar a “true hero”, noting that the captain fought back, resisted the attack and opened the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew to overpower the attacker and preventing what Netanyahu described as a catastrophic mid-air disaster.The significance of these tributes lies not merely in the word “hero”. Four leaders from different countries and institutions recognised the same qualities: courage under extreme pressure, presence of mind and an instinct to protect human life.&nbsp;Modern civilisation often celebrates technology. We speak about artificial intelligence, automation, autonomous vehicles and increasingly sophisticated aircraft. But when systems fail or circumstances become unpredictable, technology still depends upon the quality of human judgement.&nbsp;A trained mind does not necessarily eliminate fear. It learns how to function despite fear.Aviation has repeatedly demonstrated this.&nbsp;<h2>Hudson River: When an Airliner Became a Boat</h2>&nbsp;On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 lost almost all thrust in both engines after hitting birds shortly after take-off from New York. Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles landed the Airbus A320 on the Hudson River. All 155 people aboard survived, although several people suffered serious injuries. The US National Transportation Safety Board documented the complete loss of thrust and subsequent ditching.&nbsp;The event became a lasting example of how training, judgement and teamwork can compress years of aviation experience into a few critical minutes.<h2>Gimli Glider: Flying Without Fuel</h2>&nbsp;Then there was Air Canada Flight 143 — the famous Gimli Glider — in 1983.The Boeing 767 ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. Captain Robert Pearson's experience with gliding became crucial. With the engines gone and limited systems available, the crew used extraordinary airmanship to bring the aircraft down safely at a former air force base.&nbsp;There were no deaths or serious injuries.&nbsp;<h2>British Airways 9: Four Engines Go Silent</h2>&nbsp;In 1982, British Airways Flight 9 flew through volcanic ash from Mount Galunggung.All four engines of the Boeing 747 failed at cruising altitude. Captain Eric Moody calmly managed the aircraft as a glider until the engines could be restarted. The aircraft subsequently landed safely in Jakarta, with everyone aboard surviving.&nbsp;The episode demonstrated the value of calm decision-making when an apparently impossible situation develops thousands of feet above the ground.&nbsp;<h2>Air Transat 236: The Atlantic Glide</h2>&nbsp;In 2001, Air Transat Flight 236 lost both engines over the Atlantic after exhausting its fuel.Captain Robert Piché and First Officer Dirk DeJager glided the Airbus A330 toward the Azores and landed at Lajes. All 291 passengers and 13 crew survived.&nbsp;It was another reminder that when propulsion disappears, training and airmanship become the aircraft's most important remaining assets.&nbsp;<h2>Qantas 32: 50 Minutes of Relentless Decision-Making</h2>&nbsp;In 2010, Qantas Flight 32 suffered an uncontained engine failure shortly after take-off, causing extensive damage and multiple system failures on an Airbus A380 carrying 469 people.&nbsp;The crew spent about 50 minutes assessing the aircraft, managing cascading problems and preparing for the landing. The aircraft eventually landed safely at Singapore, with no reported injuries among passengers or crew.&nbsp;These five episodes are different in their causes, aircraft and circumstances. Yet they share one common thread: the crisis was bigger than any individual pilot, but the response depended upon individuals who refused to lose control of themselves.&nbsp;That is the real lesson of Smit Machchhar.&nbsp;Heroism is often portrayed as a sudden burst of extraordinary bravery. Aviation suggests something more profound. Heroism can be the outcome of thousands of hours of ordinary discipline — training repeatedly performed until the correct response becomes instinctive.&nbsp;A pilot does not train only to fly when everything is normal. Training exists for the abnormal: fire, engine failure, loss of control, medical emergencies, communication breakdowns and situations that may never have been imagined.&nbsp;The same principle applies far beyond the cockpit.&nbsp;A doctor in an emergency room, a firefighter entering a burning building, a soldier under attack, a rescue worker during a disaster or an ordinary citizen helping another person in danger may face the same psychological battle: fear versus responsibility.&nbsp;The trained mind does not always choose courage because courage feels easy. It chooses action because responsibility has become stronger than fear.&nbsp;Captain Machchhar's story therefore belongs not merely to India or to aviation. It belongs to a larger human narrative — a reminder that civilisation survives not only because of its machines, but because people are prepared to protect other human beings when machines and circumstances fail.&nbsp;The most powerful lesson from the flydubai cockpit may therefore be simple: Train the mind before the crisis arrives. Because when the moment comes, there may be no time left to learn how to be brave. &nbsp;

Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost. 

There are moments in life when there is no time to think about what should be done. There is only time to do what one has been trained to do. That is what makes the flydubai FZ1073 incident involving Indian Captain Smit Machchhar so powerful. On September 30, the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight carrying 174 passengers descended rapidly after an alleged confrontation in the cockpit in which Machchhar was seriously injured. Despite his injuries, the Indian captain managed to unlock the cockpit door, enabling passengers and other pilots on board to intervene. The aircraft was eventually brought under control and diverted safely to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft reportedly descended nearly 14,000 feet in less than 30 seconds. The story is still subject to investigation, including the motive behind the confrontation. But one fact is already clear: when a situation moved far beyond normal procedures, human courage and trained responses mattered enormously. Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost. Yet, instead of surrendering to panic, he took an action that allowed others to enter the cockpit and help regain control. That is where the incident becomes a lesson for global civilisation. A Hero Recognised Across Borders The extraordinary response to Machchhar's actions has crossed national boundaries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Captain Machchhar a “HERO”, saying that despite being seriously injured, he showed “immense courage” and an “unwavering resolve to protect the lives of others”. Modi said his valour helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy, adding that India was proud of him and praying for his recovery. President Droupadi Murmu similarly praised his “heroic courage and incredible presence of mind”. She said that even after being seriously injured in a moment of grave peril, Machchhar remained determined to protect others, and that his bravery and quick response helped prevent a major tragedy. She concluded: “I salute his indomitable spirit.” US President Donald Trump also described Machchhar as a hero while discussing the incident. Trump said that despite being in very bad shape, the pilot's decision to open the cockpit door was heroic and enabled others to intervene. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Machchhar a “true hero”, noting that the captain fought back, resisted the attack and opened the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew to overpower the attacker and preventing what Netanyahu described as a catastrophic mid-air disaster. The significance of these tributes lies not merely in the word “hero”. Four leaders from different countries and institutions recognised the same qualities: courage under extreme pressure, presence of mind and an instinct to protect human life. Modern civilisation often celebrates technology. We speak about artificial intelligence, automation, autonomous vehicles and increasingly sophisticated aircraft. But when systems fail or circumstances become unpredictable, technology still depends upon the quality of human judgement. A trained mind does not necessarily eliminate fear. It learns how to function despite fear. Aviation has repeatedly demonstrated this. Hudson River: When an Airliner Became a Boat On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 lost almost all thrust in both engines after hitting birds shortly after take-off from New York. Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles landed the Airbus A320 on the Hudson River. All 155 people aboard survived, although several people suffered serious injuries. The US National Transportation Safety Board documented the complete loss of thrust and subsequent ditching. The event became a lasting example of how training, judgement and teamwork can compress years of aviation experience into a few critical minutes. Gimli Glider: Flying Without Fuel Then there was Air Canada Flight 143 — the famous Gimli Glider — in 1983. The Boeing 767 ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. Captain Robert Pearson's experience with gliding became crucial. With the engines gone and limited systems available, the crew used extraordinary airmanship to bring the aircraft down safely at a former air force base. There were no deaths or serious injuries. British Airways 9: Four Engines Go Silent In 1982, British Airways Flight 9 flew through volcanic ash from Mount Galunggung. All four engines of the Boeing 747 failed at cruising altitude. Captain Eric Moody calmly managed the aircraft as a glider until the engines could be restarted. The aircraft subsequently landed safely in Jakarta, with everyone aboard surviving. The episode demonstrated the value of calm decision-making when an apparently impossible situation develops thousands of feet above the ground. Air Transat 236: The Atlantic Glide In 2001, Air Transat Flight 236 lost both engines over the Atlantic after exhausting its fuel. Captain Robert Piché and First Officer Dirk DeJager glided the Airbus A330 toward the Azores and landed at Lajes. All 291 passengers and 13 crew survived. It was another reminder that when propulsion disappears, training and airmanship become the aircraft's most important remaining assets. Qantas 32: 50 Minutes of Relentless Decision-Making In 2010, Qantas Flight 32 suffered an uncontained engine failure shortly after take-off, causing extensive damage and multiple system failures on an Airbus A380 carrying 469 people. The crew spent about 50 minutes assessing the aircraft, managing cascading problems and preparing for the landing. The aircraft eventually landed safely at Singapore, with no reported injuries among passengers or crew. These five episodes are different in their causes, aircraft and circumstances. Yet they share one common thread: the crisis was bigger than any individual pilot, but the response depended upon individuals who refused to lose control of themselves. That is the real lesson of Smit Machchhar. Heroism is often portrayed as a sudden burst of extraordinary bravery. Aviation suggests something more profound. Heroism can be the outcome of thousands of hours of ordinary discipline — training repeatedly performed until the correct response becomes instinctive. A pilot does not train only to fly when everything is normal. Training exists for the abnormal: fire, engine failure, loss of control, medical emergencies, communication breakdowns and situations that may never have been imagined. The same principle applies far beyond the cockpit. A doctor in an emergency room, a firefighter entering a burning building, a soldier under attack, a rescue worker during a disaster or an ordinary citizen helping another person in danger may face the same psychological battle: fear versus responsibility. The trained mind does not always choose courage because courage feels easy. It chooses action because responsibility has become stronger than fear. Captain Machchhar's story therefore belongs not merely to India or to aviation. It belongs to a larger human narrative — a reminder that civilisation survives not only because of its machines, but because people are prepared to protect other human beings when machines and circumstances fail. The most powerful lesson from the flydubai cockpit may therefore be simple: Train the mind before the crisis arrives. Because when the moment comes, there may be no time left to learn how to be brave.

Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost.&nbsp;

What Smit Machchhar, aviation tragedies teach us about crisis management | Explained

Artificial intelligence will destroy humanity. Few sentences about technology generate more fear. From warnings about superintelligence escaping human control to predictions of catastrophic consequences, the debate over AI has moved far beyond Silicon Valley and into the highest levels of global politics. But perhaps the question itself is premature. Before asking whether artificial intelligence will control humanity, the world must answer a more immediate question: who controls artificial intelligence? That question is now dividing Washington, Silicon Valley and Beijing. Some of the people closest to the technology have become some of its most prominent cautionary voices. Executives and researchers have warned that increasingly capable AI systems could create serious risks if development outruns humanity's ability to understand, constrain and govern them. The debate intensified when AI leaders called for greater government and international involvement in establishing safeguards. Donald Trump has approached the issue differently. His administration has repeatedly stressed that excessive regulation could undermine American innovation and allow China to gain ground in perhaps the most consequential technological competition of the century. That philosophy was on display at the White House on September 29, when Trump met leading technology executives and announced a voluntary agreement aimed at making advanced AI development safer. Companies committed to measures including internal controls and external auditing. Trump described the agreement as morally binding. It represents an attempt to find a middle ground between unrestricted technological development and government regulation. But it also exposes the central contradiction in the AI debate: Can the companies competing to build the world's most powerful artificial intelligence systems also be trusted to police themselves? Across the Pacific, another contradiction is emerging.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-trump-hold-productive-phone-call-discuss-trade-defence-energy-1790777329029">PM Modi, Trump hold 'productive' phone call, discuss trade, defence, energy</a>&nbsp;China is competing fiercely for technological leadership, while President Xi Jinping has publicly stressed that artificial intelligence should remain under human control and serve human welfare. Washington fears losing technological ground to Beijing. Beijing does not want to be technologically contained by Washington. Technology companies do not want regulation to suffocate innovation. Governments do not want private companies wielding transformative technology without accountability. And humanity sits in the middle. The truth is considerably less cinematic than the predictions of imminent machine apocalypse — but also more complicated than dismissing every warning as hysteria. There is no established scientific consensus that AI is destined to exterminate humanity. There are, however, risks that already exist. AI can amplify misinformation, strengthen cyber capabilities, disrupt labour markets, concentrate extraordinary technological power and increasingly operate with levels of autonomy that raise difficult questions about responsibility and control. Those deserve serious scrutiny without turning uncertainty into certainty. Artificial intelligence is ultimately a tool of extraordinary power. The defining battle therefore may not be humans versus machines. It may be governments versus corporations, America versus China, innovation versus regulation — and humanity versus its own inability to agree on the rules before the technology moves further ahead. AI is not inherently humanity's enemy. Nor is it automatically humanity's friend. It is power. And the greatest danger may not be that machines eventually become too human. It may be that humans become too careless with the machines they create.

The biggest AI risk may not be machines destroying humanity but governments and companies struggling to control and responsibly govern increasingly powerful technology.

Artificial intelligence will destroy humanity. Few sentences about technology generate more fear. From warnings about superintelligence escaping human control to predictions of catastrophic consequences, the debate over AI has moved far beyond Silicon Valley and into the highest levels of global politics. But perhaps the question itself is premature. Before asking whether artificial intelligence will control humanity, the world must answer a more immediate question: who controls artificial intelligence? That question is now dividing Washington, Silicon Valley and Beijing. Some of the people closest to the technology have become some of its most prominent cautionary voices. Executives and researchers have warned that increasingly capable AI systems could create serious risks if development outruns humanity's ability to understand, constrain and govern them. The debate intensified when AI leaders called for greater government and international involvement in establishing safeguards. Donald Trump has approached the issue differently. His administration has repeatedly stressed that excessive regulation could undermine American innovation and allow China to gain ground in perhaps the most consequential technological competition of the century. That philosophy was on display at the White House on September 29, when Trump met leading technology executives and announced a voluntary agreement aimed at making advanced AI development safer. Companies committed to measures including internal controls and external auditing. Trump described the agreement as morally binding. It represents an attempt to find a middle ground between unrestricted technological development and government regulation. But it also exposes the central contradiction in the AI debate: Can the companies competing to build the world's most powerful artificial intelligence systems also be trusted to police themselves? Across the Pacific, another contradiction is emerging. Also Read: PM Modi, Trump hold 'productive' phone call, discuss trade, defence, energy China is competing fiercely for technological leadership, while President Xi Jinping has publicly stressed that artificial intelligence should remain under human control and serve human welfare. Washington fears losing technological ground to Beijing. Beijing does not want to be technologically contained by Washington. Technology companies do not want regulation to suffocate innovation. Governments do not want private companies wielding transformative technology without accountability. And humanity sits in the middle. The truth is considerably less cinematic than the predictions of imminent machine apocalypse — but also more complicated than dismissing every warning as hysteria. There is no established scientific consensus that AI is destined to exterminate humanity. There are, however, risks that already exist. AI can amplify misinformation, strengthen cyber capabilities, disrupt labour markets, concentrate extraordinary technological power and increasingly operate with levels of autonomy that raise difficult questions about responsibility and control. Those deserve serious scrutiny without turning uncertainty into certainty. Artificial intelligence is ultimately a tool of extraordinary power. The defining battle therefore may not be humans versus machines. It may be governments versus corporations, America versus China, innovation versus regulation — and humanity versus its own inability to agree on the rules before the technology moves further ahead. AI is not inherently humanity's enemy. Nor is it automatically humanity's friend. It is power. And the greatest danger may not be that machines eventually become too human. It may be that humans become too careless with the machines they create.

The biggest AI risk may not be machines destroying humanity but governments and companies struggling to control and responsibly govern increasingly powerful technology.

Will AI destroy humanity, or are humans the real risk? | The Verdict

29 September, 2016—India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control after the Uri terror attack.India is marking 10 years of the surgical strikes, and for ten years, India has sent a clear message to Pakistan: terror will be answered with action.&nbsp;Ten years on, the question is not what India has said. The question is, what has Pakistan actually done?&nbsp;Because every few months, we hear the same promise.&nbsp;10 years ago, on the night of 28 and 29 September, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded not with a traditional full-fledged war, but with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad.&nbsp;Today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says terrorism will be eliminated. Pakistan's official statements repeatedly pledge the complete eradication of terrorism. Yet nothing changes.&nbsp;&nbsp;Just days ago, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Shehbaz Sharif was asked when Pakistan would stop harbouring terrorists and when Hafiz Saeed would be prosecuted. He walked away without answering.&nbsp;So, Pakistan can issue statements and condemn terrorism. But terrorism is not defeated by press releases.This is where Pakistan and its military lose credibility.&nbsp;For a decade, India's position has been increasingly clear: if terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate, India reserves the right to act against it.&nbsp;The strikes of 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025 show that India's counter-terror posture has moved far beyond diplomatic warnings.So, Pakistan cannot demand to be taken seriously as a victim of terrorism, while failing to answer difficult questions about terrorism emanating from its own soil.&nbsp;If Islamabad genuinely wants the world to believe its promise to end terrorism, the formula is simple: no selective action. No double standards. No convenient silence. Act. Eliminate the very mindset that propagates terrorism.&nbsp;But would Pakistani military ever want to do that?

After the Uri terror attack, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad instead of a full-fledged war.

29 September, 2016—India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control after the Uri terror attack. India is marking 10 years of the surgical strikes, and for ten years, India has sent a clear message to Pakistan: terror will be answered with action. Ten years on, the question is not what India has said. The question is, what has Pakistan actually done? Because every few months, we hear the same promise. 10 years ago, on the night of 28 and 29 September, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded not with a traditional full-fledged war, but with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad. Today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says terrorism will be eliminated. Pakistan's official statements repeatedly pledge the complete eradication of terrorism. Yet nothing changes. Just days ago, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Shehbaz Sharif was asked when Pakistan would stop harbouring terrorists and when Hafiz Saeed would be prosecuted. He walked away without answering. So, Pakistan can issue statements and condemn terrorism. But terrorism is not defeated by press releases. This is where Pakistan and its military lose credibility. For a decade, India's position has been increasingly clear: if terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate, India reserves the right to act against it. The strikes of 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025 show that India's counter-terror posture has moved far beyond diplomatic warnings. So, Pakistan cannot demand to be taken seriously as a victim of terrorism, while failing to answer difficult questions about terrorism emanating from its own soil. If Islamabad genuinely wants the world to believe its promise to end terrorism, the formula is simple: no selective action. No double standards. No convenient silence. Act. Eliminate the very mindset that propagates terrorism. But would Pakistani military ever want to do that?

After the Uri terror attack, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad instead of a full-fledged war.

The Verdict | 10 years, repeated promises: Will Pakistan really ever act against terror?

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: women’s safety is not negotiable. Whether it is a university campus in Punjab, a workplace in Delhi, a street in London, or a home anywhere in the world – every woman has the right to feel safe, and every allegation of sexual violence deserves to be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon through due process.&nbsp;The alleged LPU case has raised serious questions about campus security and how institutions respond when students believe their concerns are not being heard. An FIR has now been registered against unknown persons, and a special investigation team has been constituted to investigate the allegation.&nbsp;The university has denied the circulating claims and calls them rumours. This is precisely why a transparent, credible investigation is needed. But there is another line that must be drawn just as firmly.&nbsp;Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.&nbsp;In fact, when a protest turns violent, the original issue can get buried under the violence.&nbsp;Be loud and relentless. But do not become destructive.&nbsp;The larger cause must not be forgotten. Across the world, the conversation on women's safety has to move beyond outrage after an incident.&nbsp;Fight for women’s safety, demand accountability and protest if you must. but don't destroy the very place where justice is supposed to be delivered.&nbsp;And one more thing: in an age of social media, unverified claims can become combustible within minutes. Before we forward, accuse, or mobilise, we have a responsibility to establish what is actually known.&nbsp;So be careful. Raise your voice, but also keep fact-checking so that the larger cause is not lost.

Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: women’s safety is not negotiable. Whether it is a university campus in Punjab, a workplace in Delhi, a street in London, or a home anywhere in the world – every woman has the right to feel safe, and every allegation of sexual violence deserves to be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon through due process. The alleged LPU case has raised serious questions about campus security and how institutions respond when students believe their concerns are not being heard. An FIR has now been registered against unknown persons, and a special investigation team has been constituted to investigate the allegation. The university has denied the circulating claims and calls them rumours. This is precisely why a transparent, credible investigation is needed. But there is another line that must be drawn just as firmly. Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender. In fact, when a protest turns violent, the original issue can get buried under the violence. Be loud and relentless. But do not become destructive. The larger cause must not be forgotten. Across the world, the conversation on women's safety has to move beyond outrage after an incident. Fight for women’s safety, demand accountability and protest if you must. but don't destroy the very place where justice is supposed to be delivered. And one more thing: in an age of social media, unverified claims can become combustible within minutes. Before we forward, accuse, or mobilise, we have a responsibility to establish what is actually known. So be careful. Raise your voice, but also keep fact-checking so that the larger cause is not lost.

Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.

The Verdict | Fight for women’s safety, but don’t let violence bury the cause

The Trump-Xi summit looks like a grand diplomatic breakthrough.But strip away the red carpets, military pageantry and carefully choreographed handshakes, and the substance is remarkably negligible.Yes, the two sides have extended their trade truce by another two months. But this is not a new settlement. It's essentially a pause, even as the hard questions remain. Tariffs, Chinese weapons supply to Iran, rare-earth supplies, technology restrictions and market access.The optics are bigger than the outcomes.There was no major breakthrough on Taiwan. Xi drew the red line, Trump has not budged from America's relationship with Taiwan.No substantive agreement on AI either, despite the world's top tech CEOs present at the White House state banquet. Xi says AI must remain under human control, while Trump has dismissed AI safety concerns as fake.No resolution over Iran, even though Trump wants China to convince Iran on a peace deal.Essentially, no durable framework that fundamentally changes the trajectory of U.S.-China strategic competition has been agreed upon.In other words, this was less a summit that solved problems than a summit that managed them.And that brings me to what is called the Thucydides Trap. Xi himself invoked the concept in May this year. The idea that when a rising power challenges an established power, fear, insecurity and competition can lead to a clash.The irony is that both leaders can publicly call for stability while simultaneously competing across trade, technology, military power and geopolitics.So beyond the camera lights and press statements, the fundamental U.S.-China rivalry remains.

Despite red carpets, military pageantry, and a trade truce extension, the Trump-Xi summit yielded little substance, leaving core conflicts over Taiwan, AI, rare earths, and Iran unresolved.

The Trump-Xi summit looks like a grand diplomatic breakthrough. But strip away the red carpets, military pageantry and carefully choreographed handshakes, and the substance is remarkably negligible. Yes, the two sides have extended their trade truce by another two months. But this is not a new settlement. It's essentially a pause, even as the hard questions remain. Tariffs, Chinese weapons supply to Iran, rare-earth supplies, technology restrictions and market access. The optics are bigger than the outcomes. There was no major breakthrough on Taiwan. Xi drew the red line, Trump has not budged from America's relationship with Taiwan. No substantive agreement on AI either, despite the world's top tech CEOs present at the White House state banquet. Xi says AI must remain under human control, while Trump has dismissed AI safety concerns as fake. No resolution over Iran, even though Trump wants China to convince Iran on a peace deal. Essentially, no durable framework that fundamentally changes the trajectory of U.S.-China strategic competition has been agreed upon. In other words, this was less a summit that solved problems than a summit that managed them. And that brings me to what is called the Thucydides Trap. Xi himself invoked the concept in May this year. The idea that when a rising power challenges an established power, fear, insecurity and competition can lead to a clash. The irony is that both leaders can publicly call for stability while simultaneously competing across trade, technology, military power and geopolitics. So beyond the camera lights and press statements, the fundamental U.S.-China rivalry remains.

Despite red carpets, military pageantry, and a trade truce extension, the Trump-Xi summit yielded little substance, leaving core conflicts over Taiwan, AI, rare earths, and Iran unresolved.&nbsp;

Trump-Xi Summit: Grand Diplomatic Optics, But Little Substance

Donald Trump built much of his political brand around confronting China. Tariffs were his weapon of choice, economic pressure his preferred language and Beijing one of his favourite targets.&nbsp;But as Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in Washington, something has changed.&nbsp;The tariff warrior appears to have discovered tariff diplomacy.&nbsp;Xi's state visit comes during an extended trade truce and against the backdrop of a noticeably less confrontational American approach towards Beijing. The symbolism surrounding the visit is difficult to ignore: elaborate ceremonies, a state dinner and an American president increasingly speaking warmly about his Chinese counterpart.&nbsp;But behind the smiles lies a far more consequential question: who needs whom more?&nbsp;China has leverage Washington cannot ignore.&nbsp;For years, Washington assumed its enormous consumer market, technological superiority and financial power gave it the stronger hand.&nbsp;China has complicated that calculation.&nbsp;Its dominance of critical-mineral supply chains — particularly rare earths needed for automobiles, electronics, semiconductors and defence equipment — has emerged as an important source of leverage.&nbsp;Reuters reports China controls up to 70% of global rare-earth mining, around 85% of refining capacity and roughly 90% of rare-earth metal alloy and magnet production. Previous Chinese export restrictions demonstrated how quickly disruption could reverberate through global industries.&nbsp;That helps explain why tariffs are no longer the entire conversation.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-xi-us-china-mutual-respect-trade-ai-security-state-visit-1790261968733">Trump hails ‘mutual respect’ in US-China ties while welcoming Xi for second state visit</a>&nbsp;Trade, artificial intelligence and rare earths have all featured in discussions ahead of the summit.Washington still possesses enormous leverage of its own, particularly through access to advanced technology, capital and the American market. Beijing, meanwhile, wants economic stability as it manages challenges at home.&nbsp;This is therefore not a story of one superpower becoming dependent on another.&nbsp;It is a story of mutual dependence becoming increasingly difficult to disguise.&nbsp;Xi arrives with another constituency watching&nbsp;There is also a wider geopolitical dimension.&nbsp;Xi arrives in Washington days after using the BRICS summit in New Delhi to explicitly call for the bloc to “rally the Global South” and strengthen cooperation among emerging economies.&nbsp;China's government increasingly presents Beijing as a champion of a more multipolar international system and a partner of developing economies. But that does not mean Xi literally represents the Global South: those countries have diverse interests and do not speak with one voice.&nbsp;Still, the political symbolism matters.&nbsp;President Trump has repeatedly challenged BRICS and the broader push by emerging economies to reduce their vulnerability to American economic pressure.&nbsp;That makes this meeting bigger than a bilateral trade dispute.&nbsp;It is also part of a competition over what the next global economic order will look like.Then comes the biggest red line: Taiwan&nbsp;Trade can be negotiated. Tariffs can be reduced. Agricultural purchases can be increased.Taiwan is different.&nbsp;Beijing has consistently described the Taiwan question as the first red line that must not be crossed in China-US relations.&nbsp;That puts limits on how far the warmth between Trump and Xi can travel.&nbsp;The two governments remain strategic competitors. They disagree over technology, security, military power and the architecture of the Indo-Pacific.&nbsp;And previous agreements remain unfinished. AP reports that progress on commitments reached during their May meeting has been uneven, with analysts expecting incremental progress rather than a sweeping breakthrough from the Washington summit.&nbsp;So what would constitute success?&nbsp;Perhaps the wrong benchmark is a grand deal.&nbsp;A narrower tariff agreement, improved access to critical minerals, agricultural purchases or progress on an artificial-intelligence dialogue would all be tangible outcomes.&nbsp;But preventing another escalation may itself be significant.&nbsp;The relationship between Washington and Beijing has entered a peculiar phase: too competitive for genuine partnership, but too economically intertwined for unlimited confrontation.&nbsp;Trump can threaten tariffs.&nbsp;Xi can weaponise supply chains.&nbsp;Washington can restrict technology.&nbsp;Beijing can find new markets.&nbsp;Eventually, however, both return to the negotiating table.&nbsp;That may be the clearest message from this summit.&nbsp;America still needs China. China still needs America.&nbsp;The world's two largest economies can compete, threaten and manoeuvre — but neither can simply wish the other away.&nbsp;And somewhere between Trump's tariffs and Xi's red lines lies the new reality of superpower politics:the age of dictating terms may be giving way to the age of negotiating leverage.

Donald Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping comes amid a US China trade truce, with tariffs, rare earths, technology, Taiwan and growing economic interdependence shaping the relationship between the two powers.

Donald Trump built much of his political brand around confronting China. Tariffs were his weapon of choice, economic pressure his preferred language and Beijing one of his favourite targets. But as Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in Washington, something has changed. The tariff warrior appears to have discovered tariff diplomacy. Xi's state visit comes during an extended trade truce and against the backdrop of a noticeably less confrontational American approach towards Beijing. The symbolism surrounding the visit is difficult to ignore: elaborate ceremonies, a state dinner and an American president increasingly speaking warmly about his Chinese counterpart. But behind the smiles lies a far more consequential question: who needs whom more? China has leverage Washington cannot ignore. For years, Washington assumed its enormous consumer market, technological superiority and financial power gave it the stronger hand. China has complicated that calculation. Its dominance of critical-mineral supply chains — particularly rare earths needed for automobiles, electronics, semiconductors and defence equipment — has emerged as an important source of leverage. Reuters reports China controls up to 70% of global rare-earth mining, around 85% of refining capacity and roughly 90% of rare-earth metal alloy and magnet production. Previous Chinese export restrictions demonstrated how quickly disruption could reverberate through global industries. That helps explain why tariffs are no longer the entire conversation. Also Read: Trump hails ‘mutual respect’ in US-China ties while welcoming Xi for second state visit Trade, artificial intelligence and rare earths have all featured in discussions ahead of the summit. Washington still possesses enormous leverage of its own, particularly through access to advanced technology, capital and the American market. Beijing, meanwhile, wants economic stability as it manages challenges at home. This is therefore not a story of one superpower becoming dependent on another. It is a story of mutual dependence becoming increasingly difficult to disguise. Xi arrives with another constituency watching There is also a wider geopolitical dimension. Xi arrives in Washington days after using the BRICS summit in New Delhi to explicitly call for the bloc to “rally the Global South” and strengthen cooperation among emerging economies. China's government increasingly presents Beijing as a champion of a more multipolar international system and a partner of developing economies. But that does not mean Xi literally represents the Global South: those countries have diverse interests and do not speak with one voice. Still, the political symbolism matters. President Trump has repeatedly challenged BRICS and the broader push by emerging economies to reduce their vulnerability to American economic pressure. That makes this meeting bigger than a bilateral trade dispute. It is also part of a competition over what the next global economic order will look like. Then comes the biggest red line: Taiwan Trade can be negotiated. Tariffs can be reduced. Agricultural purchases can be increased. Taiwan is different. Beijing has consistently described the Taiwan question as the first red line that must not be crossed in China-US relations. That puts limits on how far the warmth between Trump and Xi can travel. The two governments remain strategic competitors. They disagree over technology, security, military power and the architecture of the Indo-Pacific. And previous agreements remain unfinished. AP reports that progress on commitments reached during their May meeting has been uneven, with analysts expecting incremental progress rather than a sweeping breakthrough from the Washington summit. So what would constitute success? Perhaps the wrong benchmark is a grand deal. A narrower tariff agreement, improved access to critical minerals, agricultural purchases or progress on an artificial-intelligence dialogue would all be tangible outcomes. But preventing another escalation may itself be significant. The relationship between Washington and Beijing has entered a peculiar phase: too competitive for genuine partnership, but too economically intertwined for unlimited confrontation. Trump can threaten tariffs. Xi can weaponise supply chains. Washington can restrict technology. Beijing can find new markets. Eventually, however, both return to the negotiating table. That may be the clearest message from this summit. America still needs China. China still needs America. The world's two largest economies can compete, threaten and manoeuvre — but neither can simply wish the other away. And somewhere between Trump's tariffs and Xi's red lines lies the new reality of superpower politics: the age of dictating terms may be giving way to the age of negotiating leverage.

Donald Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping comes amid a US-China trade truce, with tariffs, rare earths, technology, Taiwan and growing economic interdependence shaping the relationship between the two powers.

From tariff war to tariff flirtation: Who needs whom more, Trump or Xi? | The Verdict

As world leaders gather in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly, the proceedings offer an appropriate moment to consider a transformation that goes beyond the institution itself: the changing nature of power in international affairs. The theme of this year’s General Assembly — “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all” — is particularly apt. The UN was created in 1945 as part of a new international architecture, alongside the Bretton Woods institutions, designed to replace the instability of an earlier era with rules, institutions and greater predictability. Before 1945, however, international order rested principally on great-power diplomacy. Alliances shifted, treaties were negotiated, spheres of influence were contested, and crises were often managed through conferences and bargains among the major powers. The Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars was an early example. The League of Nations subsequently attempted to institutionalise collective security, but failed to prevent the descent into the Second World War. The post-1945 settlement was therefore more than the creation of new organisations. It represented a different conception of international order. Bretton Woods established the IMF and World Bank as pillars of international economic cooperation, while the UN became its principal political institution. Today, that system is under pressure. But the deeper transformation may not be simply geopolitical. We may be moving from a predominantly geopolitical world towards a world of technopolitics — a world in which technological capability itself becomes a principal source of geopolitical power. Artificial intelligence is at the centre of this transformation, but it is only one part of it. Semiconductors, computing capacity, data, robotics and humanoids, quantum technologies, biotechnology, digital currencies, communications networks and the energy required to power them are becoming strategic assets. For much of the twentieth century, territory, natural resources, industrial capacity and military power were among the principal currencies of national power. In the emerging order, control over technological ecosystems may become equally important. This is more than technology influencing geopolitics. It is the emergence of technopolitics: the capacity to develop, control and deploy critical technologies becoming an integral component of national power.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-will-consider-trump-s-g20-invitation-to-putin-eu-vows-to-keep-condemning-moscow-1790249580564">Russia will ‘consider’ Trump’s G20 invitation to Putin; EU vows to keep condemning Moscow</a>&nbsp;The change is also blurring the traditional distinction between states and corporations. A relatively small number of technology companies possess capital, data, computing infrastructure and scientific capabilities on a scale capable of influencing national power. Governments, meanwhile, increasingly regard critical technologies and the companies that develop them as instruments of economic and strategic security. The emerging order could therefore be shaped not only by states, but by states, corporations and the technological ecosystems that connect them. The United States and China are presently the two most consequential centres of this competition. Their rivalry increasingly encompasses artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors, data centres and strategic supply chains, alongside conventional trade and military competition. This does not necessarily mean the emergence of a rigid new Cold War. Economic interdependence remains substantial, and technological boundaries are unlikely to be completely sealed. Nevertheless, a form of technological G2 could emerge: two broad ecosystems centred on the United States and China, with a considerable grey zone between them. Other major powers will have to decide how they respond. Europe, India, Japan, Russia and others may align substantially with one ecosystem, seek to build independent capabilities, or pursue a hybrid approach that allows them to work with both. For India, the question is particularly consequential. India has moved closer to the United States in critical and emerging technologies while simultaneously seeking to strengthen its own technological capabilities. Its scale, scientific base, digital economy and growing technological ambitions give it the possibility of pursuing something more sophisticated than simply choosing between Washington and Beijing. The question for India is whether it can develop sufficient technological depth to become a pole in its own right while participating in both major ecosystems where its interests require it. This is not merely an economic calculation. It is a question of strategic autonomy. The implications extend beyond individual technologies. If technological capabilities become increasingly concentrated in a relatively small number of corporations and their associated states, institutions created after 1945 may increasingly struggle to reflect the actual distribution of power. The United Nations, IMF, World Bank and wider multilateral economic system were designed for a world in which states were overwhelmingly the principal repositories of strategic power. The future may be different. Power may increasingly be distributed between states and technological networks that cross national borders. This raises a difficult question for the international community now meeting in New York: will the existing multilateral order adapt to this new distribution of power, or will a period of great-power bargaining precede the creation of a new system? There is an intriguing historical possibility. The technologies transforming the twenty-first century could take us back towards a political pattern associated with an earlier age: a world in which a relatively small number of powerful actors negotiate directly over the rules of the international system. It would not be a return to the nineteenth century. Technology has changed the nature of power too profoundly for that. But the underlying political pattern could become familiar: great powers, together with their associated economic and technological interests, making arrangements among themselves, sometimes through international institutions and sometimes outside them. In that sense, the future could represent a return to the future. Yet this may be only an interregnum. The post-1945 order itself emerged because the arrangements that preceded it had proved inadequate to the realities of their time. The technological revolution may eventually require a comparable institutional response. Artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, data, digital currencies and other technologies will raise questions that existing institutions were never designed to answer. The challenge is to ensure that technological power does not outrun the institutions needed to govern it. Whether the emerging order becomes more fragmented or eventually produces new forms of multilateralism remains uncertain. What is becoming clearer is that technology is no longer merely an instrument of geopolitical power. It is becoming one of its principal sources. The great strategic question of the coming decades may therefore not simply be who controls territory, resources or military power, but who controls the technologies that increasingly determine how the world itself works.

Technology is increasingly shaping global power, with the US-China rivalry, artificial intelligence, semiconductors and other emerging technologies becoming central to geopolitics and strategic choices.

As world leaders gather in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly, the proceedings offer an appropriate moment to consider a transformation that goes beyond the institution itself: the changing nature of power in international affairs. The theme of this year’s General Assembly — “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all” — is particularly apt. The UN was created in 1945 as part of a new international architecture, alongside the Bretton Woods institutions, designed to replace the instability of an earlier era with rules, institutions and greater predictability. Before 1945, however, international order rested principally on great-power diplomacy. Alliances shifted, treaties were negotiated, spheres of influence were contested, and crises were often managed through conferences and bargains among the major powers. The Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars was an early example. The League of Nations subsequently attempted to institutionalise collective security, but failed to prevent the descent into the Second World War. The post-1945 settlement was therefore more than the creation of new organisations. It represented a different conception of international order. Bretton Woods established the IMF and World Bank as pillars of international economic cooperation, while the UN became its principal political institution. Today, that system is under pressure. But the deeper transformation may not be simply geopolitical. We may be moving from a predominantly geopolitical world towards a world of technopolitics — a world in which technological capability itself becomes a principal source of geopolitical power. Artificial intelligence is at the centre of this transformation, but it is only one part of it. Semiconductors, computing capacity, data, robotics and humanoids, quantum technologies, biotechnology, digital currencies, communications networks and the energy required to power them are becoming strategic assets. For much of the twentieth century, territory, natural resources, industrial capacity and military power were among the principal currencies of national power. In the emerging order, control over technological ecosystems may become equally important. This is more than technology influencing geopolitics. It is the emergence of technopolitics: the capacity to develop, control and deploy critical technologies becoming an integral component of national power. Also Read: Russia will ‘consider’ Trump’s G20 invitation to Putin; EU vows to keep condemning Moscow The change is also blurring the traditional distinction between states and corporations. A relatively small number of technology companies possess capital, data, computing infrastructure and scientific capabilities on a scale capable of influencing national power. Governments, meanwhile, increasingly regard critical technologies and the companies that develop them as instruments of economic and strategic security. The emerging order could therefore be shaped not only by states, but by states, corporations and the technological ecosystems that connect them. The United States and China are presently the two most consequential centres of this competition. Their rivalry increasingly encompasses artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors, data centres and strategic supply chains, alongside conventional trade and military competition. This does not necessarily mean the emergence of a rigid new Cold War. Economic interdependence remains substantial, and technological boundaries are unlikely to be completely sealed. Nevertheless, a form of technological G2 could emerge: two broad ecosystems centred on the United States and China, with a considerable grey zone between them. Other major powers will have to decide how they respond. Europe, India, Japan, Russia and others may align substantially with one ecosystem, seek to build independent capabilities, or pursue a hybrid approach that allows them to work with both. For India, the question is particularly consequential. India has moved closer to the United States in critical and emerging technologies while simultaneously seeking to strengthen its own technological capabilities. Its scale, scientific base, digital economy and growing technological ambitions give it the possibility of pursuing something more sophisticated than simply choosing between Washington and Beijing. The question for India is whether it can develop sufficient technological depth to become a pole in its own right while participating in both major ecosystems where its interests require it. This is not merely an economic calculation. It is a question of strategic autonomy. The implications extend beyond individual technologies. If technological capabilities become increasingly concentrated in a relatively small number of corporations and their associated states, institutions created after 1945 may increasingly struggle to reflect the actual distribution of power. The United Nations, IMF, World Bank and wider multilateral economic system were designed for a world in which states were overwhelmingly the principal repositories of strategic power. The future may be different. Power may increasingly be distributed between states and technological networks that cross national borders. This raises a difficult question for the international community now meeting in New York: will the existing multilateral order adapt to this new distribution of power, or will a period of great-power bargaining precede the creation of a new system? There is an intriguing historical possibility. The technologies transforming the twenty-first century could take us back towards a political pattern associated with an earlier age: a world in which a relatively small number of powerful actors negotiate directly over the rules of the international system. It would not be a return to the nineteenth century. Technology has changed the nature of power too profoundly for that. But the underlying political pattern could become familiar: great powers, together with their associated economic and technological interests, making arrangements among themselves, sometimes through international institutions and sometimes outside them. In that sense, the future could represent a return to the future. Yet this may be only an interregnum. The post-1945 order itself emerged because the arrangements that preceded it had proved inadequate to the realities of their time. The technological revolution may eventually require a comparable institutional response. Artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, data, digital currencies and other technologies will raise questions that existing institutions were never designed to answer. The challenge is to ensure that technological power does not outrun the institutions needed to govern it. Whether the emerging order becomes more fragmented or eventually produces new forms of multilateralism remains uncertain. What is becoming clearer is that technology is no longer merely an instrument of geopolitical power. It is becoming one of its principal sources. The great strategic question of the coming decades may therefore not simply be who controls territory, resources or military power, but who controls the technologies that increasingly determine how the world itself works.

Technology is increasingly shaping global power, with the US-China rivalry, artificial intelligence, semiconductors and other emerging technologies becoming central to geopolitics and strategic choices.

Back to the future: The rise of technopolitics

Donald Trump insists the midterm elections do not enter his thinking. But with November approaching, the political pressure surrounding his presidency is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from the war in Iran, divisions within the Republican Party, his confrontation with the media and deteriorating poll numbers.&nbsp;Perhaps the most significant warning is coming from inside his own party.&nbsp;Republican lawmakers have increasingly shown a willingness to challenge the president, particularly over the Iran war. Some have backed congressional efforts to restrain his war powers, while vulnerable Republicans have also distanced themselves from administration positions on issues ranging from immigration to trade.&nbsp;For a president who has exercised extraordinary influence over the Republican Party, even limited defections matter.&nbsp;Then there is Iran.&nbsp;Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Trump argued that Tehran could be waiting for America's midterm elections before reaching an agreement.&nbsp;"We'll make a deal right after the election," Trump said, before stressing that he himself is not running.That distinction may be technically correct. Politically, it is much harder to make.&nbsp;Trump has placed himself at the centre of the Republican campaign. At the party's Dallas convention, he defended the Iran war, urged supporters to vote as though he were on the ballot and promised Americans a $5,000 "Trump dividend" if Republicans retained their congressional majorities.The convention was designed as a demonstration of political strength.&nbsp;But it also illustrated the degree to which Republican fortunes remain tied to one man who cannot personally appear on another presidential ballot.&nbsp;Then came another confrontation — this time with the media.&nbsp;Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing them of dishonest reporting. The organisations responded with a lawsuit arguing that the restrictions violate First Amendment protections.&nbsp;The spectacle at the United Nations was striking: journalists barred from the White House were still able to question the American president after receiving credentials from the UN.&nbsp;Trump can restrict access to the White House.&nbsp;Controlling the wider political conversation is considerably more difficult.And then there are the numbers.&nbsp;A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted September 17-20 put Trump's approval rating at 32 per cent among American adults — the lowest level recorded by Reuters/Ipsos across his first and second presidencies. His approval among Republicans stood at 73 per cent, down from 86 per cent in January.A Marist survey released this week found 53 per cent of registered voters saying they were more likely to support the Democratic congressional candidate in their district, compared with 41 per cent supporting the Republican.&nbsp;Perhaps even more revealing, 45 per cent described their congressional vote primarily as a vote against Trump. Only 24 per cent described theirs primarily as a vote for him.&nbsp;Those figures do not determine what will happen in November. Congressional elections are decided district by district and state by state, and control of the House and Senate remains dependent on individual races.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-will-never-bend-at-the-knee-pezeshkian-hits-back-at-trump-at-unga-1790175284876">‘Iran will never bend at the knee’: Pezeshkian hits back at Trump at UNGA</a>&nbsp;But they explain why Republicans are paying attention.&nbsp;If Democrats gain control of the House, Trump's final two years could look markedly different.A hostile chamber could bring investigations, subpoenas, hearings and legislative gridlock.&nbsp;Republicans would also lose an important institutional shield around the White House.That may be the larger political danger confronting Trump.&nbsp;Not simply losing seats.&nbsp;Losing control of Washington's agenda.&nbsp;The president says he is not running in November.&nbsp;He doesn't need to be.&nbsp;His war, his economic record, his political movement and his second-term agenda are already being judged alongside the candidates who are.&nbsp;And that may explain why an election Trump says does not enter his mind increasingly hangs over almost everything his presidency does. The underlying numbers there are sourced to Reuters/Ipsos and Marist; Cook's latest battleground polling also found Democrats at 49% and Republicans at 47% specifically in competitive House districts, including districts Trump carried by an average of five points in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Trump's UN remarks likewise explicitly connected a possible Iran deal with the period after the election while saying the election itself would not influence his Iran decisions.&nbsp;

Donald Trump may not be on the 2026 midterm ballot, but his Iran war, political record, media confrontation and weakening approval ratings are increasingly shaping the battle for control of Congress.

Donald Trump insists the midterm elections do not enter his thinking. But with November approaching, the political pressure surrounding his presidency is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from the war in Iran, divisions within the Republican Party, his confrontation with the media and deteriorating poll numbers. Perhaps the most significant warning is coming from inside his own party. Republican lawmakers have increasingly shown a willingness to challenge the president, particularly over the Iran war. Some have backed congressional efforts to restrain his war powers, while vulnerable Republicans have also distanced themselves from administration positions on issues ranging from immigration to trade. For a president who has exercised extraordinary influence over the Republican Party, even limited defections matter. Then there is Iran. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Trump argued that Tehran could be waiting for America's midterm elections before reaching an agreement. "We'll make a deal right after the election," Trump said, before stressing that he himself is not running. That distinction may be technically correct. Politically, it is much harder to make. Trump has placed himself at the centre of the Republican campaign. At the party's Dallas convention, he defended the Iran war, urged supporters to vote as though he were on the ballot and promised Americans a $5,000 "Trump dividend" if Republicans retained their congressional majorities. The convention was designed as a demonstration of political strength. But it also illustrated the degree to which Republican fortunes remain tied to one man who cannot personally appear on another presidential ballot. Then came another confrontation — this time with the media. Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing them of dishonest reporting. The organisations responded with a lawsuit arguing that the restrictions violate First Amendment protections. The spectacle at the United Nations was striking: journalists barred from the White House were still able to question the American president after receiving credentials from the UN. Trump can restrict access to the White House. Controlling the wider political conversation is considerably more difficult. And then there are the numbers. A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted September 17-20 put Trump's approval rating at 32 per cent among American adults — the lowest level recorded by Reuters/Ipsos across his first and second presidencies. His approval among Republicans stood at 73 per cent, down from 86 per cent in January. A Marist survey released this week found 53 per cent of registered voters saying they were more likely to support the Democratic congressional candidate in their district, compared with 41 per cent supporting the Republican. Perhaps even more revealing, 45 per cent described their congressional vote primarily as a vote against Trump. Only 24 per cent described theirs primarily as a vote for him. Those figures do not determine what will happen in November. Congressional elections are decided district by district and state by state, and control of the House and Senate remains dependent on individual races. Also Read: ‘Iran will never bend at the knee’: Pezeshkian hits back at Trump at UNGA But they explain why Republicans are paying attention. If Democrats gain control of the House, Trump's final two years could look markedly different. A hostile chamber could bring investigations, subpoenas, hearings and legislative gridlock. Republicans would also lose an important institutional shield around the White House. That may be the larger political danger confronting Trump. Not simply losing seats. Losing control of Washington's agenda. The president says he is not running in November. He doesn't need to be. His war, his economic record, his political movement and his second-term agenda are already being judged alongside the candidates who are. And that may explain why an election Trump says does not enter his mind increasingly hangs over almost everything his presidency does. The underlying numbers there are sourced to Reuters/Ipsos and Marist; Cook's latest battleground polling also found Democrats at 49% and Republicans at 47% specifically in competitive House districts, including districts Trump carried by an average of five points in 2024. Trump's UN remarks likewise explicitly connected a possible Iran deal with the period after the election while saying the election itself would not influence his Iran decisions.

Donald Trump may not be on the 2026 midterm ballot, but his Iran war, political record, media confrontation and weakening approval ratings are increasingly shaping the battle for control of Congress.

Trump isn't on the ballot, but his presidency is | The Verdict

I am a woman. And I have, like millions of women around the world, experienced moral policing, groping and harassment in public places at some point in my life. I've carried fear in my heart.&nbsp;On 19 September, two class 10 students, a girl and a boy, were stopped by those who think of themselves as moral police. These sick people forgot their own morals and forcefully assaulted and sexually harassed the victims.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is just so problematic on multiple levels.&nbsp;First, who gave these men the right? Who appointed them police officers? Who made them judges?Who gave them the authority to decide where two young people could go, how they should behave, or what punishment they deserve?&nbsp;Second, the victim's identity was exposed as the now-viral video got widely circulated. Trauma is turned into content. It's forwarded, reposted, commented on, made political and argued over. Because guess what, we all want to be social media influencers.&nbsp;&nbsp;Third and the biggest, most shameless is the reaction from Bihar's sitting ministers and ruling party. Rural Development Minister Shrawon Kumar and JD(U) State President Upendra Kushwaha called this a "small, isolated incident." Seriously, no shame left at all in our politicians?&nbsp;&nbsp;Mob justice of any kind needs to stop in this country. We have a legal system.&nbsp;Stop sugar-coating bullying and moral policing as culture, discipline and protection.&nbsp;Stop dressing up misogyny as morality.&nbsp;&nbsp;Women's safety isn't just an electoral promise. It is a reflection of where a country stands.&nbsp;And I'm afraid till the time we don't get over our sickening patriarchal mindsets, India's enemy will be its own people.

Mob justice of any kind needs to stop. We have a legal system. Stop sugar-coating bullying and moral policing as culture, discipline and protection. Stop dressing up misogyny as morality. Women's safety isn't just an electoral promise. It is a reflection of where a country stands.

I am a woman. And I have, like millions of women around the world, experienced moral policing, groping and harassment in public places at some point in my life. I've carried fear in my heart. On 19 September, two class 10 students, a girl and a boy, were stopped by those who think of themselves as moral police. These sick people forgot their own morals and forcefully assaulted and sexually harassed the victims. This is just so problematic on multiple levels. First, who gave these men the right? Who appointed them police officers? Who made them judges? Who gave them the authority to decide where two young people could go, how they should behave, or what punishment they deserve? Second, the victim's identity was exposed as the now-viral video got widely circulated. Trauma is turned into content. It's forwarded, reposted, commented on, made political and argued over. Because guess what, we all want to be social media influencers. Third and the biggest, most shameless is the reaction from Bihar's sitting ministers and ruling party. Rural Development Minister Shrawon Kumar and JD(U) State President Upendra Kushwaha called this a "small, isolated incident." Seriously, no shame left at all in our politicians? Mob justice of any kind needs to stop in this country. We have a legal system. Stop sugar-coating bullying and moral policing as culture, discipline and protection. Stop dressing up misogyny as morality. Women's safety isn't just an electoral promise. It is a reflection of where a country stands. And I'm afraid till the time we don't get over our sickening patriarchal mindsets, India's enemy will be its own people.

Mob justice of any kind needs to stop. We have a legal system. Stop sugar-coating bullying and moral policing as culture, discipline and protection. Stop dressing up misogyny as morality. Women's safety isn't just an electoral promise. It is a reflection of where a country stands.

The Verdict | Moral policing isn’t culture or discipline, it’s crime

WASHINGTON – To hear President Donald Trump tell it, the United States enjoys global respect “like never before.” A series of international surveys contradict that claim, but it gives ammunition to critics who, as one recent headline put it, believe that “Trump has untethered himself from reality.”&nbsp;The term “alternative reality” has been common currency among Trump critics ever since then presidential counsellor Kellyanne Conway assured journalists questioning claims of a record attendance at Trump’s inauguration that the White House had “alternative facts.”&nbsp;That was on the second day of the president’s first term. Since then, there has been an unending stream of statements contradicted by facts. The Washington Post tallied 30,573 “false or misleading” statements from 2017 to the end of the first Trump term. &nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-war-iran-war-ai-and-covid-19-here-s-what-on-top-agenda-as-world-leaders-gather-in-new-york-for-unga-2026-1789717779463">Global wars, AI, Covid-19 and more: Here's what's on top agenda as world leaders gather in New York for UNGA 2026</a>The White House has also brushed facts aside in Trump’s second term, beginning in 2025. The way the world sees the United States is another example of a clash between reality and wishful thinking. &nbsp;&nbsp;The assertion that global respect for the U.S. is at an all-time high has featured in multiple speeches to global and domestic audiences, the latest this month, even as it became clear that the war against Iran that Trump started in February is deeply unpopular both abroad and at home. &nbsp;&nbsp;According to a survey of 42,151 people in 36 countries conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre in May, attitudes toward the United States and its president are negative in regions across the globe. Disapproval is tied to policies that range from tariffs to international conflicts such as the war on Iran and Russia’s war on Ukraine.&nbsp;An even more extensive survey by the Alliance of Democracy Foundation, a watchdog group based in Denmark, found that respondents in 82 of the 85 countries surveyed held negative views of the United States.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/unga-2026-how-many-countries-are-members-of-the-united-nations-full-list-1789550537103">UN General Assembly 2026: 193 member countries, key events and what to expect</a>That stands in sharp contrast to decades during which the United States was seen as a force for good for its role in shaping alliances and helping create international organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations after the end of World War II. &nbsp;&nbsp;But from his first term in office (2017-2021) to his second, Trump has been outspoken about his disdain for international alliances, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Mocking some of its leaders has prompted anger rather than respect.&nbsp;Paying little attention to what political scientists call the rules-based international order has prompted global publics to increasingly view Trump as an unreliable partner. That does not appear to cause him sleepless nights. &nbsp;&nbsp;But he is aware that widespread dissatisfaction at home with the impact of his foreign policy moves augurs dark days ahead for the Republican Party he leads.&nbsp;The party holds slim leads in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They provided no hurdle to Trump’s relentless drive to amass power in the executive, the third pillar of the American political system. Trump loyalists run the second, the judicial.&nbsp;Trump supporters subscribe to the “unitary executive theory”, a concept that holds that the President has absolute authority over the executive branch, complete with the power to fire all federal employees at will and without explanation.&nbsp;That is the reason why political pundits call the present system “the imperial presidency. “ &nbsp;&nbsp;It may come to an end on November 3, in midterm elections for all 435 seats in the House and 35 of the 100-seat Senate.&nbsp;Judging from polls, the Republicans are very likely to lose the majority. Some raise the less likely possibility that in the Senate enough seats will be flipped for a razor-thin Democratic majority. A change in the House would follow a historic trend – the dominant party traditionally loses its majority. The last time it didn’t was 24 years ago.&nbsp;To fire up voters, the Republican National Committee organised a party convention in the second week of May, with Trump as keynote speaker on both days. But dozens of candidates in vulnerable seats stayed away – clearly because they didn’t think closeness to an unpopular president was a winning strategy.&nbsp;Trump’s approval rating is at its lowest in his two terms. The reason, which cuts across party lines: the war on Iran is deeply unpopular, and so are high prices for gasoline caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the key waterway that used to carry a fifth of the world’s oil. &nbsp;&nbsp;Protesters in at least nine countries have staged mass demonstrations against skyrocketing fuel prices, blaming both their local governments and the U.S. war against Iran, which has led to the closure of the narrow shipping lane that carries a fifth of the world’s oil. &nbsp;&nbsp;How the world’s leaders rate Trump’s performance and the respect he claims will be put to the test next week when the American president addresses the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which includes 193 member states.&nbsp;In his address last year, he boasted that joint U.S.-Israeli bombing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in Iran the previous June had “totally obliterated everything.” That proved wishful thinking. &nbsp;&nbsp;Iran remained defiant even though it took heavy blows militarily and economically last year and then again since the beginning of the war in February.&nbsp;As the war dragged on, regional instability has been growing, and so have doubts among Washington’s Gulf allies that the United States can protect them.&nbsp;Don’t expect the U.N. speech to prompt a standing ovation or other signs of respect.

According to a survey of 42,151 people in 36 countries conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Center in May, attitudes toward the United States and its president are negative in regions across the globe. 

WASHINGTON – To hear President Donald Trump tell it, the United States enjoys global respect “like never before.” A series of international surveys contradict that claim, but it gives ammunition to critics who, as one recent headline put it, believe that “Trump has untethered himself from reality.” The term “alternative reality” has been common currency among Trump critics ever since then presidential counsellor Kellyanne Conway assured journalists questioning claims of a record attendance at Trump’s inauguration that the White House had “alternative facts.” That was on the second day of the president’s first term. Since then, there has been an unending stream of statements contradicted by facts. The Washington Post tallied 30,573 “false or misleading” statements from 2017 to the end of the first Trump term. Also read | Global wars, AI, Covid-19 and more: Here's what's on top agenda as world leaders gather in New York for UNGA 2026 The White House has also brushed facts aside in Trump’s second term, beginning in 2025. The way the world sees the United States is another example of a clash between reality and wishful thinking. The assertion that global respect for the U.S. is at an all-time high has featured in multiple speeches to global and domestic audiences, the latest this month, even as it became clear that the war against Iran that Trump started in February is deeply unpopular both abroad and at home. According to a survey of 42,151 people in 36 countries conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre in May, attitudes toward the United States and its president are negative in regions across the globe. Disapproval is tied to policies that range from tariffs to international conflicts such as the war on Iran and Russia’s war on Ukraine. An even more extensive survey by the Alliance of Democracy Foundation, a watchdog group based in Denmark, found that respondents in 82 of the 85 countries surveyed held negative views of the United States. Also read | UN General Assembly 2026: 193 member countries, key events and what to expect That stands in sharp contrast to decades during which the United States was seen as a force for good for its role in shaping alliances and helping create international organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations after the end of World War II. But from his first term in office (2017-2021) to his second, Trump has been outspoken about his disdain for international alliances, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Mocking some of its leaders has prompted anger rather than respect. Paying little attention to what political scientists call the rules-based international order has prompted global publics to increasingly view Trump as an unreliable partner. That does not appear to cause him sleepless nights. But he is aware that widespread dissatisfaction at home with the impact of his foreign policy moves augurs dark days ahead for the Republican Party he leads. The party holds slim leads in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They provided no hurdle to Trump’s relentless drive to amass power in the executive, the third pillar of the American political system. Trump loyalists run the second, the judicial. Trump supporters subscribe to the “unitary executive theory”, a concept that holds that the President has absolute authority over the executive branch, complete with the power to fire all federal employees at will and without explanation. That is the reason why political pundits call the present system “the imperial presidency. “ It may come to an end on November 3, in midterm elections for all 435 seats in the House and 35 of the 100-seat Senate. Judging from polls, the Republicans are very likely to lose the majority. Some raise the less likely possibility that in the Senate enough seats will be flipped for a razor-thin Democratic majority. A change in the House would follow a historic trend – the dominant party traditionally loses its majority. The last time it didn’t was 24 years ago. To fire up voters, the Republican National Committee organised a party convention in the second week of May, with Trump as keynote speaker on both days. But dozens of candidates in vulnerable seats stayed away – clearly because they didn’t think closeness to an unpopular president was a winning strategy. Trump’s approval rating is at its lowest in his two terms. The reason, which cuts across party lines: the war on Iran is deeply unpopular, and so are high prices for gasoline caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the key waterway that used to carry a fifth of the world’s oil. Protesters in at least nine countries have staged mass demonstrations against skyrocketing fuel prices, blaming both their local governments and the U.S. war against Iran, which has led to the closure of the narrow shipping lane that carries a fifth of the world’s oil. How the world’s leaders rate Trump’s performance and the respect he claims will be put to the test next week when the American president addresses the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which includes 193 member states. In his address last year, he boasted that joint U.S.-Israeli bombing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in Iran the previous June had “totally obliterated everything.” That proved wishful thinking. Iran remained defiant even though it took heavy blows militarily and economically last year and then again since the beginning of the war in February. As the war dragged on, regional instability has been growing, and so have doubts among Washington’s Gulf allies that the United States can protect them. Don’t expect the U.N. speech to prompt a standing ovation or other signs of respect.

According to a survey of 42,151 people in 36 countries conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Center in May, attitudes toward the United States and its president are negative in regions across the globe.&nbsp;

Trump 2.0: Dark days ahead for America’s ‘imperial presidency’

What does the world expect from the most powerful military on earth? Precision. Intelligence. Accuracy. And above all, responsibility. But in Minab, the United States military ended up killing more than 120 Iranian schoolchildren.&nbsp;A new report by the United Nations has revealed that investigators found "reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians".&nbsp;These were children. Children who went to school that morning expecting lessons, laughter and a great time with friends. All they got was missiles.&nbsp;Collateral damage is a word that is used loosely in wars. But its impact is perhaps the heaviest.&nbsp;The tragedy becomes even harder to reconcile with when the weapon involved is part of one of the world's most sophisticated military arsenals.&nbsp;The UN investigation said the school was visibly identifiable as a civilian facility and found failures in verifying the target.&nbsp;President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth continue to not fully accept this blunder. No amount of money or power can calculate the value of a child who never gets to grow up.&nbsp;America can boast about military supremacy. It can showcase its missiles, satellites and targeting systems. But it cannot bring back those little school girls.&nbsp;Wars are often announced by leaders and military generals, but they are paid for by ordinary people. And therefore, there can be no "acceptable collateral damage." When war loses sight of the human being behind the target, precision is nothing more than a word in the dictionary, and power deserves no respect.

A new report by the United Nations has revealed that investigators found "reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians".

What does the world expect from the most powerful military on earth? Precision. Intelligence. Accuracy. And above all, responsibility. But in Minab, the United States military ended up killing more than 120 Iranian schoolchildren. A new report by the United Nations has revealed that investigators found "reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians". These were children. Children who went to school that morning expecting lessons, laughter and a great time with friends. All they got was missiles. Collateral damage is a word that is used loosely in wars. But its impact is perhaps the heaviest. The tragedy becomes even harder to reconcile with when the weapon involved is part of one of the world's most sophisticated military arsenals. The UN investigation said the school was visibly identifiable as a civilian facility and found failures in verifying the target. President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth continue to not fully accept this blunder. No amount of money or power can calculate the value of a child who never gets to grow up. America can boast about military supremacy. It can showcase its missiles, satellites and targeting systems. But it cannot bring back those little school girls. Wars are often announced by leaders and military generals, but they are paid for by ordinary people. And therefore, there can be no "acceptable collateral damage." When war loses sight of the human being behind the target, precision is nothing more than a word in the dictionary, and power deserves no respect.

A new report by the United Nations has revealed that investigators found "reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians".

The Verdict | When precision fails: US commits war crime in Minab school strike, UN finds

Picture a fighter jet that first flew for India more than twenty years ago. One morning it is rolled into a hangar. Months later it comes out looking almost the same from outside — but inside, it is very nearly a new machine. That, in a single image, is the Super Sukhoi.&nbsp;The aircraft is the Sukhoi-30MKI. Around 260 of them serve in the Indian Air Force. It is a heavy, twin-engine fighter, and it is the one India counts on for two demanding jobs: winning control of the sky, and striking deep inside hostile territory. For two decades it has carried that weight. But the sky around it has changed. There are now stealth fighters that barely show up on radar.&nbsp;There are missiles that can kill from far beyond what the eye can see. There are electronic systems that can blind an aircraft without firing a single shot. Staying relevant in such a sky is not a matter of pride. It is survival.&nbsp;This is why India began the Super Sukhoi programme, also called Super 30. Think of it as a mid-life overhaul — the way a senior athlete rebuilds training, diet and technique to stay competitive against younger rivals. The goal is to keep these jets fighting effectively into the 2050s.&nbsp;The biggest change is the jet's eyesight. The old Russian Bars radar makes way for Virupaksha, designed and built in India. Virupaksha is an AESA radar — Active Electronically Scanned Array. In plain words, it does not turn a dish to look around. It is made of thousands of tiny transmitters that shift the beam electronically, almost instantly. It carries roughly 2,400 such modules, built from gallium nitride, a material that handles heat and power far better than older parts — rather like moving from an ordinary bulb to a bright, efficient LED.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/the-verdict-mecca-a-red-line-and-the-houthis-who-refuse-to-go-away-1789574184763">The Verdict | Mecca, a 'red line' and the Houthis who refuse to go away</a>&nbsp;What does that buy a pilot? Reported figures put detection at 300 to 400 kilometres for fighter-sized targets, and up to about 200 kilometres against a very small stealth-type aircraft. The radar can watch many threats at once and is much harder to jam. In air combat, seeing first is usually the same as winning first.&nbsp;The cockpit is being rebuilt too, with new mission computers, modern displays, and computers that help the pilot sort threats faster. One idea here is worth learning: sensor fusion. Instead of the pilot reading several instruments and joining the story together mentally, the aircraft joins it for him and shows one clear picture. In a fight measured in seconds, that saved effort can save a life.&nbsp;An advanced Indian electronic warfare suite is also going in. Electronic warfare is the invisible half of modern combat — confusing the other side's radars while shielding your own aircraft from the same treatment.&nbsp;The jet will be harder to spot as well. Indian radar-absorbent material will be applied to its skin to reduce its radar signature. This does not make a large fighter invisible. It makes it look fainter and smaller to a searching radar, like wearing dark clothes on a moonless night.&nbsp;Then come the weapons: the Astra air-to-air missile and the supersonic BrahMos cruise missile, turning the upgraded fighter into a genuinely lethal multi-role platform.&nbsp;The first phase covers about 84 aircraft, with more of the fleet to follow. HAL and DRDO lead the work, and the Indian content is deliberately kept high. The programme is valued at roughly ₹65,000 crore.&nbsp;The radar passed its first power-on test, called First Light, in February 2026. Deliveries are aimed at mid-2027, flight trials on a modified Su-30MKI from early 2028, and the first 84 upgraded jets after 2030.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/the-verdict-hostile-to-whom-canada-looks-to-europe-and-trump-threatens-tariffs-1789663067987">The Verdict | Hostile to whom? Canada looks to Europe — and Trump threatens tariffs</a>&nbsp;One honest note belongs here. These performance numbers are programme claims, not yet proven in flight. The paperwork and clearances are still moving. This is a promise being built, not a delivery already made.&nbsp;Aircraft do not defend a country by themselves. They are flown by young men and women who quietly trust every wire and every weld, and who lift off knowing that the border far below them will not wait for perfect equipment.&nbsp;And behind that promise are people. Every radar module and every line of code stands for Indian engineers who spent years in laboratories, testing, failing and testing again, so that the country need not queue up for someone else's technology. Behind them are families who barely see them through a trial season, and technicians on the flight line whose hands have grown old with these aircraft.&nbsp;In plain terms, Super Sukhoi is India's intelligent answer to a hard question: how do you become far stronger without waiting years for a brand-new fighter? The answer is a proven airframe given Indian eyes, an Indian brain and Indian missiles — and told, quite firmly, that its work is not finished yet. &nbsp;

Around 260 of Sukhoi-30MKI serve in the Indian Air Force. It is a heavy, twin-engine fighter, and it is the one India counts on for two demanding jobs: winning control of the sky, and striking deep inside hostile territory.

Picture a fighter jet that first flew for India more than twenty years ago. One morning it is rolled into a hangar. Months later it comes out looking almost the same from outside — but inside, it is very nearly a new machine. That, in a single image, is the Super Sukhoi. The aircraft is the Sukhoi-30MKI. Around 260 of them serve in the Indian Air Force. It is a heavy, twin-engine fighter, and it is the one India counts on for two demanding jobs: winning control of the sky, and striking deep inside hostile territory. For two decades it has carried that weight. But the sky around it has changed. There are now stealth fighters that barely show up on radar. There are missiles that can kill from far beyond what the eye can see. There are electronic systems that can blind an aircraft without firing a single shot. Staying relevant in such a sky is not a matter of pride. It is survival. This is why India began the Super Sukhoi programme, also called Super 30. Think of it as a mid-life overhaul — the way a senior athlete rebuilds training, diet and technique to stay competitive against younger rivals. The goal is to keep these jets fighting effectively into the 2050s. The biggest change is the jet's eyesight. The old Russian Bars radar makes way for Virupaksha, designed and built in India. Virupaksha is an AESA radar — Active Electronically Scanned Array. In plain words, it does not turn a dish to look around. It is made of thousands of tiny transmitters that shift the beam electronically, almost instantly. It carries roughly 2,400 such modules, built from gallium nitride, a material that handles heat and power far better than older parts — rather like moving from an ordinary bulb to a bright, efficient LED. ALSO READ: The Verdict | Mecca, a 'red line' and the Houthis who refuse to go away What does that buy a pilot? Reported figures put detection at 300 to 400 kilometres for fighter-sized targets, and up to about 200 kilometres against a very small stealth-type aircraft. The radar can watch many threats at once and is much harder to jam. In air combat, seeing first is usually the same as winning first. The cockpit is being rebuilt too, with new mission computers, modern displays, and computers that help the pilot sort threats faster. One idea here is worth learning: sensor fusion. Instead of the pilot reading several instruments and joining the story together mentally, the aircraft joins it for him and shows one clear picture. In a fight measured in seconds, that saved effort can save a life. An advanced Indian electronic warfare suite is also going in. Electronic warfare is the invisible half of modern combat — confusing the other side's radars while shielding your own aircraft from the same treatment. The jet will be harder to spot as well. Indian radar-absorbent material will be applied to its skin to reduce its radar signature. This does not make a large fighter invisible. It makes it look fainter and smaller to a searching radar, like wearing dark clothes on a moonless night. Then come the weapons: the Astra air-to-air missile and the supersonic BrahMos cruise missile, turning the upgraded fighter into a genuinely lethal multi-role platform. The first phase covers about 84 aircraft, with more of the fleet to follow. HAL and DRDO lead the work, and the Indian content is deliberately kept high. The programme is valued at roughly ₹65,000 crore. The radar passed its first power-on test, called First Light, in February 2026. Deliveries are aimed at mid-2027, flight trials on a modified Su-30MKI from early 2028, and the first 84 upgraded jets after 2030. ALSO READ: The Verdict | Hostile to whom? Canada looks to Europe — and Trump threatens tariffs One honest note belongs here. These performance numbers are programme claims, not yet proven in flight. The paperwork and clearances are still moving. This is a promise being built, not a delivery already made. Aircraft do not defend a country by themselves. They are flown by young men and women who quietly trust every wire and every weld, and who lift off knowing that the border far below them will not wait for perfect equipment. And behind that promise are people. Every radar module and every line of code stands for Indian engineers who spent years in laboratories, testing, failing and testing again, so that the country need not queue up for someone else's technology. Behind them are families who barely see them through a trial season, and technicians on the flight line whose hands have grown old with these aircraft. In plain terms, Super Sukhoi is India's intelligent answer to a hard question: how do you become far stronger without waiting years for a brand-new fighter? The answer is a proven airframe given Indian eyes, an Indian brain and Indian missiles — and told, quite firmly, that its work is not finished yet.

Around 260 of Sukhoi-30MKI serve in the Indian Air Force. It is a heavy, twin-engine fighter, and it is the one India counts on for two demanding jobs: winning control of the sky, and striking deep inside hostile territory.

Inside the lethal rebirth of India’s super Sukhoi

Canada is looking across the Atlantic, Europe is holding open the door, and Donald Trump is warning that the emerging relationship could amount to a “hostile act.”European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed making Canada the European Union's first-ever associate member, an unprecedented arrangement designed to take relations between Ottawa and Brussels well beyond their existing trade agreement.The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic. Von der Leyen says EU–Canada trade in goods has already grown 75 per cent in less than a decade under CETA.But there is an important caveat: Canada is not joining the European Union.“Associate membership” currently has no established legal status in the EU. The proposal remains undefined, would require the backing of member states and has already prompted questions from European diplomats about how such an arrangement would actually work.Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney nevertheless welcomed the ambition while addressing the European Parliament on Thursday. He argued that deeper cooperation would strengthen Canadian resilience and independence rather than create another global power bloc.Washington's response has been considerably less enthusiastic.Trump called the proposal “laughable” and warned that if he considers it hostile, the United States could impose heavy tariffs or restrict trade with Europe.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | Canada-EU ties &#39;irk&#39; Donald Trump Mark Carney addresses EU lawmakers <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> and <a href="https://x.com/ShivanChanana?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShivanChanana</a> tell you more <a href="https://t.co/XF3g3KvpFI">pic.twitter.com/XF3g3KvpFI</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2100618312040567021?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

France pushed back, saying Washington cannot determine Europe's geopolitical choices. The European Commission insists the proposed partnership is not directed against anybody.That leaves a striking contradiction.Relations between Canada and the United States have deteriorated amid tariffs and broader disputes. Ottawa has consequently sought to reduce its economic dependence on its southern neighbour and deepen relationships elsewhere. Roughly 70 per cent of Canadian exports currently go to the United States.Now Canada's attempt to diversify those relationships is itself provoking another tariff threat.The dispute therefore reaches beyond trade.It raises a larger question about sovereignty and alliances in an increasingly transactional international order: can major powers expect their allies to become more independent while objecting when those allies exercise that independence?Geography will not change.America will remain Canada's neighbour.But being somebody's neighbour does not make you their property.And if Washington pushes traditional partners to look elsewhere, it cannot be surprised when they begin finding each other.

The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic. 

Canada is looking across the Atlantic, Europe is holding open the door, and Donald Trump is warning that the emerging relationship could amount to a “hostile act.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed making Canada the European Union's first-ever associate member, an unprecedented arrangement designed to take relations between Ottawa and Brussels well beyond their existing trade agreement. The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic. Von der Leyen says EU–Canada trade in goods has already grown 75 per cent in less than a decade under CETA. But there is an important caveat: Canada is not joining the European Union. “Associate membership” currently has no established legal status in the EU. The proposal remains undefined, would require the backing of member states and has already prompted questions from European diplomats about how such an arrangement would actually work. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney nevertheless welcomed the ambition while addressing the European Parliament on Thursday. He argued that deeper cooperation would strengthen Canadian resilience and independence rather than create another global power bloc. Washington's response has been considerably less enthusiastic. Trump called the proposal “laughable” and warned that if he considers it hostile, the United States could impose heavy tariffs or restrict trade with Europe.

The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic.&nbsp;

The Verdict | Hostile to whom? Canada looks to Europe — and Trump threatens tariffs

A drone approaching Islam's holiest city has brought an old war dangerously close to one of Saudi Arabia's most sensitive red lines.Saudi Arabia says its air defences intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the city's prohibited airspace. Riyadh described the security of the Two Holy Mosques and pilgrims as a “red line.”The Houthis deny targeting Mecca.That dispute matters. But behind it lies a much larger question: after more than a decade of military pressure, why are Yemen's Houthis still capable of putting Saudi Arabia on alert?Since Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015, the Houthis have faced military action involving a remarkable collection of regional and global powers.Yet their military capabilities have expanded.The Associated Press reports that their arsenal now includes ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship missiles and naval drones. A 2024 UN experts' report estimated Houthi manpower had increased from around 30,000 in 2015 to as many as 350,000 by 2024. Iran denies arming the Houthis, while UN experts and intercepted weapons shipments have documented extensive military links.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | Saudi Arabia VS Houthi conflict reaches the doorstep of the holy city Air raid alerts sound in Mecca, birthplace of Prophet Muhammad; Houthis deny attack on the holy city<a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> and <a href="https://x.com/ShivanChanana?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShivanChanana</a> have more <a href="https://t.co/KBkf2UKs1l">pic.twitter.com/KBkf2UKs1l</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2100255999462666536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The consequences now extend far beyond Yemen.The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman travelled to Egypt as Riyadh sought regional support. During talks with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, both leaders stressed the importance of securing navigation through the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.But perhaps the most revealing development is diplomatic.U.S. officials reportedly met Houthi representatives in Oman over the weekend, according to Reuters reporting cited by multiple outlets.That creates an extraordinary picture.Saudi Arabia is talking about deterrence. The Houthis are demonstrating military reach. Washington is exploring diplomacy. And global commerce remains exposed to whatever happens around the Red Sea.Saudi Arabia's warning over Mecca therefore carries significance far beyond one intercepted drone.Because declaring a red line is the easy part.The harder question is what happens when an adversary decides to test it.

The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.

A drone approaching Islam's holiest city has brought an old war dangerously close to one of Saudi Arabia's most sensitive red lines. Saudi Arabia says its air defences intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the city's prohibited airspace. Riyadh described the security of the Two Holy Mosques and pilgrims as a “red line.” The Houthis deny targeting Mecca. That dispute matters. But behind it lies a much larger question: after more than a decade of military pressure, why are Yemen's Houthis still capable of putting Saudi Arabia on alert? Since Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015, the Houthis have faced military action involving a remarkable collection of regional and global powers. Yet their military capabilities have expanded. The Associated Press reports that their arsenal now includes ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship missiles and naval drones. A 2024 UN experts' report estimated Houthi manpower had increased from around 30,000 in 2015 to as many as 350,000 by 2024. Iran denies arming the Houthis, while UN experts and intercepted weapons shipments have documented extensive military links.

The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.

The Verdict | Mecca, a 'red line' and the Houthis who refuse to go away

The internet has found a new topic to discuss and dissect: Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight gain. Being a woman in India is already a daily battle—add the relentless glare of fame, and the pressure becomes downright suffocating. Kaif, a well-known face in Bollywood who has carved her path with sheer hard work over the last two decades in cinema, has often found herself in the middle of controversies, most of which have had nothing to do with her work. Be it the men she has dated, her intimate marriage to actor Vicky Kaushal, speculations around her impending motherhood, or the latest scrutiny over her weight gain, people have been relentless in passing judgment about her and her personal life.&nbsp;Kaif made a public appearance after the birth of her son on Monday evening at a Ganpati celebration in Mumbai. This was her first public outing in 10 months, ever since she and her husband welcomed the birth of their son, Vihaan. Dressed in a moss green anarkali and a multicoloured embellished dupatta, Katrina glowed in her new role as a mother. She posed with her husband for the paparazzi before heading inside for the event.<h2>‘She is finished’</h2>&nbsp;While Katrina’s appearance was met with excitement by her ardent fans, who were seeing her at an event after ages, a section of social media took no time to share images of her and ruthlessly criticise her appearance.“Why do women neglect their self-care post-pregnancy?” stated a user on X while observing her weight change postpartum.&nbsp;“She is finished,” wrote another.&nbsp;The comments, however infuriating, were immediately shot down by women and men alike who defended the actress and pointed out that women go through a sea change—both mentally and physically—after embracing motherhood.&nbsp;However, the criticism highlights a deeply problematic pattern in society, where it is acceptable to relentlessly police a woman’s body in every phase of existence. Society acts as an agency deciding what the ideal body type is and how a woman should look, irrespective of her age or the juncture she is at in her life.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdRonv5ztDd/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdRonv5ztDd/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdRonv5ztDd/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Viral Bhayani (@viralbhayani)</a></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

<h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>The Myth of the 'Unchanging Woman'</h2>&nbsp;For years, actresses have had to adhere to a certain body type and look to appease society. Public figures in particular are viewed through a lens where they are seen outside the laws of biology, ageing, and life transitions. A woman’s body is often treated as public property that must maintain an eternal 22-year-old baseline. For many, Katrina’s video on Monday came as a complete shock. How could the most desirable woman in the country look like their wives or mothers? How could the ultimate dream girl look so "girl next door"? Where did Sheila’s Jawaani go?<h2>The Postpartum Paradox</h2>Katrina Kaif married Vicky Kaushal in 2021. Since then, the couple has had to face continuous questions around their plans for parenthood. On multiple occasions, the media declared Katrina ‘pregnant,’ only to be shut down by the star herself as she made stunning red-carpet appearances.&nbsp;One would have thought that the speculations would finally be buried once and for all when the couple announced their pregnancy in September 2025 and welcomed their son in November.&nbsp;<blockquote>Now that the baby is here, what could the next target of scrutiny be? Of course, the woman’s weight.</blockquote>Bringing a human life into the world is lauded in theory, but its physiological reality—weight shifts, facial fullness, recovery time—is treated as a personal failing or "neglect." The narrative shifts from celebrating life to penalising visible change. From nagging, prying relatives to online trolls, everyone was obsessed with when she would get pregnant, and after the baby’s arrival, it was time to comment on her looks. There is never a break.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Da9mOz0lzMy/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Da9mOz0lzMy/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Da9mOz0lzMy/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Katrina Kaif (@katrinakaif)</a></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

&nbsp;<h2>Moving the Goalposts: The Endless Checklist</h2>&nbsp;For scores of women, the goalposts keep moving with time. First, get that degree, then find a job. Once a woman is independent and enjoying her newfound freedom and career success, the goalposts shift again. Now it is time to get married because the biological clock is ticking. Then, if she finds the right partner and settles into matrimony, society deems her incomplete until she becomes a mother. Postpartum, she is forced into an immediate, punitive "bounce-back" culture that erases the gruelling reality of recovery. Women constantly face an inescapable set of demands at every milestone.<h2>You Can Never Please the World</h2>If a woman opts for cosmetic tweaks or makeup changes, she is shamed for "not ageing naturally." If she displays natural soft facial features, ageing, or postpartum warmth, she is accused of "losing her charm" or "letting herself go."&nbsp;Funnily enough, these harsh expectations rarely apply to men. Male actors are routinely allowed to age, gain weight, grey, or look tired without losing their status as cultural icons or leading men.&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote>No one scrutinises a man wearing a hairpiece to cover a bald patch, but if botox or lip filler is spotted on a woman, all hell breaks loose. For men, physical changes are framed as "maturity," "ruggedness," or "wisdom." Women are simply called fake and subsequently replaced.</blockquote>What is even more alarming is the authoritative tone used by trolls to criticise the post-baby body of the actress, as if Kaif owes them an aesthetic debt.<h2>Have You Looked at Vicky?</h2>A night out at a cultural event with family becomes a battleground where a woman must run the gauntlet of high-definition cameras, slow-motion zooms, and malicious comment threads. Most people are concentrating on Katrina Kaif, but no one seems to notice Vicky Kaushal next to her, who looks quite scruffy with a full beard and long hair. He, being a man, owes no one an explanation, nor will there ever be an expectation for him to look a certain way.&nbsp;The backlash against Katrina Kaif isn't about makeup, lighting, or postpartum weight. It is about society’s refusal to allow women the dignity of transformation—and, most importantly, the right to simply live. It exposes a culture that celebrates the idea of motherhood but punishes the actual, living proof of it on a woman's body.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Society’s harsh reaction to Katrina Kaif’s postpartum appearance exposes double standards and a body-policing culture that celebrates motherhood in theory but punishes its physical reality.

The internet has found a new topic to discuss and dissect: Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight gain. Being a woman in India is already a daily battle—add the relentless glare of fame, and the pressure becomes downright suffocating. Kaif, a well-known face in Bollywood who has carved her path with sheer hard work over the last two decades in cinema, has often found herself in the middle of controversies, most of which have had nothing to do with her work. Be it the men she has dated, her intimate marriage to actor Vicky Kaushal, speculations around her impending motherhood, or the latest scrutiny over her weight gain, people have been relentless in passing judgment about her and her personal life. Kaif made a public appearance after the birth of her son on Monday evening at a Ganpati celebration in Mumbai. This was her first public outing in 10 months, ever since she and her husband welcomed the birth of their son, Vihaan. Dressed in a moss green anarkali and a multicoloured embellished dupatta, Katrina glowed in her new role as a mother. She posed with her husband for the paparazzi before heading inside for the event. ‘She is finished’ While Katrina’s appearance was met with excitement by her ardent fans, who were seeing her at an event after ages, a section of social media took no time to share images of her and ruthlessly criticise her appearance. “Why do women neglect their self-care post-pregnancy?” stated a user on X while observing her weight change postpartum. “She is finished,” wrote another. The comments, however infuriating, were immediately shot down by women and men alike who defended the actress and pointed out that women go through a sea change—both mentally and physically—after embracing motherhood. However, the criticism highlights a deeply problematic pattern in society, where it is acceptable to relentlessly police a woman’s body in every phase of existence. Society acts as an agency deciding what the ideal body type is and how a woman should look, irrespective of her age or the juncture she is at in her life.

Society’s harsh reaction to Katrina Kaif’s postpartum appearance exposes double standards and a body-policing culture that celebrates motherhood in theory but punishes its physical reality.

Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight is not the problem; your gaze is

Somewhere off India's western coast, oil workers ending a long shift on a steel platform will soon see a helicopter built in their own country arriving to take them home. That moment captures what Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will mark on 18 September 2026, when it delivers three home-grown aircraft at its Aircraft Division in Vimanapura, Bengaluru. The ceremony runs from 5 to 6 pm, with entry through Gate 20 of the HAL Airport premises. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Civil Aviation Minister K. Rammohan Naidu will attend.&nbsp;That helicopter is the Dhruv NG, the next-generation civilian version of HAL's Advanced Light Helicopter. Mr Naidu flagged off its first flight in Bengaluru on 30 December 2025. Now it moves from display to duty. Pawan Hans has ordered ten for more than ₹1,800 crore. Four arrive now, and the rest follow this financial year. The first is likely to ferry ONGC crews to and from offshore rigs.&nbsp;The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own. It cruises at about 285 kmph, covers some 630 km with fuel in reserve, stays aloft for about three hours 40 minutes, and climbs to about 6,000 metres, enough for many Himalayan and plateau routes. The cabin can take four to six VIP seats, up to 14 passengers, or four stretchers with medical crew, which makes it a flying ambulance. Built largely from Indian material, it supports HAL's plan to grow civil work from a small share to nearly a quarter of turnover within ten years.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/brics-summit-2026-was-played-down-dismissed-or-nearly-blacked-out-by-western-media-that-didn-t-work-1789450655670">BRICS Summit 2026 was played down, dismissed or nearly blacked out by Western media. That didn't work</a>&nbsp;Leading this shift is Ravi Kota, HAL's 22nd Chairman and Managing Director since 1 May 2026, after D.K. Sunil retired. Defence circles still call him the "LCA man." He is a mechanical engineer from Malnad College of Engineering and an alumnus of IIM Ahmedabad and Toulouse. He headed the Tejas division, helped bring the fleet into service, and worked on contracts for 180 Tejas jets and 156 Prachand light combat helicopters. He wants a globally competitive HAL driven by innovation, Artificial Intelligence, operational excellence and its people.&nbsp;That fighter background shows in the second delivery, the LCA FOC trainer. It is a two-seat Tejas Mk-1 built to Final Operational Clearance, cleared for real combat flying. The trainee sits in front and the instructor behind, under a lengthened canopy, so young pilots practise combat flying in a jet that handles just like the single-seat fighter. These twin-seaters complete the first 40-aircraft Tejas order. They came last because the single-seat fighters were built first. They arrive as the Indian Air Force expands its Tejas family with 83 Mk-1A jets and then 97 more, many of them two-seaters. A third line at Nashik is raising yearly output.&nbsp;HAL is also speeding up Tejas output on the factory floor, working with Bengaluru-based ADD Engineering Components on robotic drilling for the fighter's wings. A robot places each of the thousands of fastener holes in a wing the same way every time, cutting rework and freeing skilled technicians for tasks that need human judgement.&nbsp;The third aircraft is where every fighter pilot's journey begins. For years, Indian cadets learned first take-offs, landings, instrument flying and recovery from sudden rolls on the Swiss-built Pilatus PC-7 Mk II. The Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40) now takes over. The first three, two from Bengaluru and one from Nashik, belong to a March 2023 order for 70 aircraft worth about ₹6,838 crore.&nbsp;The HTT-40 seats two, one behind the other, and is fully aerobatic. Its air-conditioned glass cockpit replaces old dials with digital screens, like a modern car dashboard. Its Martin-Baker "zero-zero" ejection seats can save both occupants even when the aircraft is standing still on the ground. A Honeywell TPE331-12B turboprop, a turbine engine that spins a propeller, gives it a top speed near 450 kmph, a range of about 1,000 km and a ceiling of about 6,000 metres.&nbsp;The road tested everyone's patience. Engine shortages pushed deliveries past the original 2025–26 target until Honeywell supplies began in 2026. HAL's two lines can now build about 20 trainers a year between them. Indian content, close to 56 per cent today, is set to cross 60 per cent. A nation that cannot train its own pilots cannot grow its own air force.&nbsp;Late engines and long waits are part of this story, but so is persistence. On 18 September, India hands over machines that will train its pilots, guard its skies and carry its people across sea and mountain. &nbsp;

The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own.

Somewhere off India's western coast, oil workers ending a long shift on a steel platform will soon see a helicopter built in their own country arriving to take them home. That moment captures what Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will mark on 18 September 2026, when it delivers three home-grown aircraft at its Aircraft Division in Vimanapura, Bengaluru. The ceremony runs from 5 to 6 pm, with entry through Gate 20 of the HAL Airport premises. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Civil Aviation Minister K. Rammohan Naidu will attend. That helicopter is the Dhruv NG, the next-generation civilian version of HAL's Advanced Light Helicopter. Mr Naidu flagged off its first flight in Bengaluru on 30 December 2025. Now it moves from display to duty. Pawan Hans has ordered ten for more than ₹1,800 crore. Four arrive now, and the rest follow this financial year. The first is likely to ferry ONGC crews to and from offshore rigs. The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own. It cruises at about 285 kmph, covers some 630 km with fuel in reserve, stays aloft for about three hours 40 minutes, and climbs to about 6,000 metres, enough for many Himalayan and plateau routes. The cabin can take four to six VIP seats, up to 14 passengers, or four stretchers with medical crew, which makes it a flying ambulance. Built largely from Indian material, it supports HAL's plan to grow civil work from a small share to nearly a quarter of turnover within ten years. ALSO READ: BRICS Summit 2026 was played down, dismissed or nearly blacked out by Western media. That didn't work Leading this shift is Ravi Kota, HAL's 22nd Chairman and Managing Director since 1 May 2026, after D.K. Sunil retired. Defence circles still call him the "LCA man." He is a mechanical engineer from Malnad College of Engineering and an alumnus of IIM Ahmedabad and Toulouse. He headed the Tejas division, helped bring the fleet into service, and worked on contracts for 180 Tejas jets and 156 Prachand light combat helicopters. He wants a globally competitive HAL driven by innovation, Artificial Intelligence, operational excellence and its people. That fighter background shows in the second delivery, the LCA FOC trainer. It is a two-seat Tejas Mk-1 built to Final Operational Clearance, cleared for real combat flying. The trainee sits in front and the instructor behind, under a lengthened canopy, so young pilots practise combat flying in a jet that handles just like the single-seat fighter. These twin-seaters complete the first 40-aircraft Tejas order. They came last because the single-seat fighters were built first. They arrive as the Indian Air Force expands its Tejas family with 83 Mk-1A jets and then 97 more, many of them two-seaters. A third line at Nashik is raising yearly output. HAL is also speeding up Tejas output on the factory floor, working with Bengaluru-based ADD Engineering Components on robotic drilling for the fighter's wings. A robot places each of the thousands of fastener holes in a wing the same way every time, cutting rework and freeing skilled technicians for tasks that need human judgement. The third aircraft is where every fighter pilot's journey begins. For years, Indian cadets learned first take-offs, landings, instrument flying and recovery from sudden rolls on the Swiss-built Pilatus PC-7 Mk II. The Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40) now takes over. The first three, two from Bengaluru and one from Nashik, belong to a March 2023 order for 70 aircraft worth about ₹6,838 crore. The HTT-40 seats two, one behind the other, and is fully aerobatic. Its air-conditioned glass cockpit replaces old dials with digital screens, like a modern car dashboard. Its Martin-Baker "zero-zero" ejection seats can save both occupants even when the aircraft is standing still on the ground. A Honeywell TPE331-12B turboprop, a turbine engine that spins a propeller, gives it a top speed near 450 kmph, a range of about 1,000 km and a ceiling of about 6,000 metres. The road tested everyone's patience. Engine shortages pushed deliveries past the original 2025–26 target until Honeywell supplies began in 2026. HAL's two lines can now build about 20 trainers a year between them. Indian content, close to 56 per cent today, is set to cross 60 per cent. A nation that cannot train its own pilots cannot grow its own air force. Late engines and long waits are part of this story, but so is persistence. On 18 September, India hands over machines that will train its pilots, guard its skies and carry its people across sea and mountain.

The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own.

Salt air to sound waves: HAL’s homegrown trio takes wing

For much of the West-led foreign media, India is still the land of snake charmers. A chaotic nation that can't organise anything big, definitely not a global summit. From dismissive coverage, an overt focus on US President Donald Trump's so-called ‘looming shadow’, India-China rivalry to a near-blackout, foreign media tried running down the BRICS Summit 2026 held in New Delhi this past weekend. The only problem? Nobody cared what the Western media had to say.<h2>BRICS summit’s own agenda was hardly mentioned in much of the Western media coverage</h2>The focus of several global media groups was on issues that were not at the top of the official BRICS agenda: the Ukraine-Russia war, the Iran conflict, and so on. BRICS, meanwhile, was busy forging consensus on some of the thorniest issues the world was facing. Because they weren't waiting for diktats from the West.BRICS leaders had work to do, as they were representing around 40 per cent of global GDP and half the world’s population. And at the end, the summit unanimously adopted the nearly 140-point, 45-page New Delhi Declaration, by consensus. As chair and host of BRICS 2026, India had the challenge of holding together an expanded and politically diverse grouping. And it did so, without turning BRICS into an explicitly anti-Western bloc.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-brics-joint-declaration-adopted-amid-west-asia-1789273195098/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-brics-joint-declaration-adopted-amid-west-asia-1789273195098/embed</a><h2>From Trump to Russia-Ukraine: Foreign media used Western geopolitical lenses</h2>The BBC headline said, “Trump shadow looms large over BRICS as Modi hosts Putin and Xi”. So somehow, BRICS was all about how to deal with Trump. The New York Times focused on India and China competing for influence in the Global South. It didn't anticipate that dialogue can help iron out differences.Bloomberg gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi credit for forging consensus “in the shadow” of the worsening Iran war. It acknowledged that what happened in Delhi was a diplomatic coup, but immediately returned to the argument that the Xi-Modi thaw “concealed deeper divisions”. For context, despite all the anti-China stance and rhetoric of the US, Trump will be meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in a few days from now.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/brics-in-pictures-leaders-diplomacy-and-viral-moments-from-delhi-summit-1789316925917">BRICS in pictures: Leaders, diplomacy and viral moments from Delhi summit</a><h2>Was BRICS the forum to solve wars? Some Western media seem to think so</h2>The Financial Times, The Independent and others highlighted internal tensions within BRICS, such as differences between Iran and Gulf members. They talked up the Ukraine-Russia war, as if the BRICS Summit was called to resolve these conflicts. They openly questioned how much the summit could actually deliver. If they read the Declaration, they will know.Ironically, Ukraine – whose president gets prominent airtime at practically all West-led summits – barely figured in the New Delhi Declaration or the talks preceding it.On West Asia, the language was respectful, measured, diplomatic and all-encompassing, with BRICS calling for restraint. None of the belligerents – Iran, the US or Israel – were explicitly named. But to the Western media, these omissions were evidence of weakness. They didn't see that while the major powers could not get the text or spirit right on a truce in West Asia or Ukraine, India's greatest achievement was the consensus itself.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/did-brics-summit-2026-prove-that-an-11-member-bloc-with-india-and-china-in-it-can-still-agree-on-key-issues-1789292891454">Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that an 11-member bloc with India and China in it can still agree on key issues?</a><h2>China-India rivalry: The recurring Western media angle</h2>Most of the outlets highlighted competition, and not cooperation, between China and India. The coverage nitpicked on the ‘limitations’ of the thaw in relations. Brushed under the carpet was the fact that Xi was visiting a nation with which China had border clashes in Doklam and the Galwan Valley only a few years ago. Or that China-India trade continued to grow despite the tensions.Also ignored was that, despite this ‘rivalry’, the summit had a single voice on terrorism, Global South representation, UN and IMF reform, local-currency payments, digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. These were aspects that demonstrated that cooperation was possible despite differences.<h2>You bring the photos, I'll dismiss that summit</h2>Visuals are everything, and what angle a media outlet turns its lens towards speaks a lot about the thinking process of its newsroom. The photos that appeared alongside articles in much of the Western media coverage tell their own story: giant BRICS or Modi billboards paired with bicycles, mopeds, auto-rickshaws and street workers.That's reductionism. Western media needed confirmation that India is still poor. Their photo cropping did that job.<h2>Ignoring tells a story: BRICS received less prominence than its scale</h2>In many cases, Western publications relegated the coverage to wire reports or analytical pieces. On print and TV, BRICS was not a top prime-time or front-page story.India was aware of the burden of expectations in a fragmented world. “Will they succeed or fail?”, was the story Western media was salivating over. In the run-up to the summit, India deliberately avoided excessive banners, speeches and publicity.The foreign media tried to portray BRICS as a divided, ineffective or anti-Western project. India was not trying to create a NATO-style alliance. India wanted to prove that countries with competing interests could still reach consensus.At the end of the day, an increasingly diverse bloc agreed to agree. That was the point of the summit.Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer."&nbsp;

Western media coverage of BRICS Summit 2026 focused on Trump, Ukraine, Iran and India-China rivalry. India instead delivered consensus, exposing the gap between the summit's agenda and foreign media coverage.

For much of the West-led foreign media, India is still the land of snake charmers. A chaotic nation that can't organise anything big, definitely not a global summit. From dismissive coverage, an overt focus on US President Donald Trump's so-called ‘looming shadow’, India-China rivalry to a near-blackout, foreign media tried running down the BRICS Summit 2026 held in New Delhi this past weekend. The only problem? Nobody cared what the Western media had to say. BRICS summit’s own agenda was hardly mentioned in much of the Western media coverage The focus of several global media groups was on issues that were not at the top of the official BRICS agenda: the Ukraine-Russia war, the Iran conflict, and so on. BRICS, meanwhile, was busy forging consensus on some of the thorniest issues the world was facing. Because they weren't waiting for diktats from the West. BRICS leaders had work to do, as they were representing around 40 per cent of global GDP and half the world’s population. And at the end, the summit unanimously adopted the nearly 140-point, 45-page New Delhi Declaration, by consensus. As chair and host of BRICS 2026, India had the challenge of holding together an expanded and politically diverse grouping. And it did so, without turning BRICS into an explicitly anti-Western bloc. https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-brics-joint-declaration-adopted-amid-west-asia-1789273195098/embed From Trump to Russia-Ukraine: Foreign media used Western geopolitical lenses The BBC headline said, “Trump shadow looms large over BRICS as Modi hosts Putin and Xi”. So somehow, BRICS was all about how to deal with Trump. The New York Times focused on India and China competing for influence in the Global South. It didn't anticipate that dialogue can help iron out differences. Bloomberg gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi credit for forging consensus “in the shadow” of the worsening Iran war. It acknowledged that what happened in Delhi was a diplomatic coup, but immediately returned to the argument that the Xi-Modi thaw “concealed deeper divisions”. For context, despite all the anti-China stance and rhetoric of the US, Trump will be meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in a few days from now. Also read: BRICS in pictures: Leaders, diplomacy and viral moments from Delhi summit Was BRICS the forum to solve wars? Some Western media seem to think so The Financial Times, The Independent and others highlighted internal tensions within BRICS, such as differences between Iran and Gulf members. They talked up the Ukraine-Russia war, as if the BRICS Summit was called to resolve these conflicts. They openly questioned how much the summit could actually deliver. If they read the Declaration, they will know. Ironically, Ukraine – whose president gets prominent airtime at practically all West-led summits – barely figured in the New Delhi Declaration or the talks preceding it. On West Asia, the language was respectful, measured, diplomatic and all-encompassing, with BRICS calling for restraint. None of the belligerents – Iran, the US or Israel – were explicitly named. But to the Western media, these omissions were evidence of weakness. They didn't see that while the major powers could not get the text or spirit right on a truce in West Asia or Ukraine, India's greatest achievement was the consensus itself. Also read: Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that an 11-member bloc with India and China in it can still agree on key issues? China-India rivalry: The recurring Western media angle Most of the outlets highlighted competition, and not cooperation, between China and India. The coverage nitpicked on the ‘limitations’ of the thaw in relations. Brushed under the carpet was the fact that Xi was visiting a nation with which China had border clashes in Doklam and the Galwan Valley only a few years ago. Or that China-India trade continued to grow despite the tensions. Also ignored was that, despite this ‘rivalry’, the summit had a single voice on terrorism, Global South representation, UN and IMF reform, local-currency payments, digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. These were aspects that demonstrated that cooperation was possible despite differences. You bring the photos, I'll dismiss that summit Visuals are everything, and what angle a media outlet turns its lens towards speaks a lot about the thinking process of its newsroom. The photos that appeared alongside articles in much of the Western media coverage tell their own story: giant BRICS or Modi billboards paired with bicycles, mopeds, auto-rickshaws and street workers. That's reductionism. Western media needed confirmation that India is still poor. Their photo cropping did that job. Ignoring tells a story: BRICS received less prominence than its scale In many cases, Western publications relegated the coverage to wire reports or analytical pieces. On print and TV, BRICS was not a top prime-time or front-page story. India was aware of the burden of expectations in a fragmented world. “Will they succeed or fail?”, was the story Western media was salivating over. In the run-up to the summit, India deliberately avoided excessive banners, speeches and publicity. The foreign media tried to portray BRICS as a divided, ineffective or anti-Western project. India was not trying to create a NATO-style alliance. India wanted to prove that countries with competing interests could still reach consensus. At the end of the day, an increasingly diverse bloc agreed to agree. That was the point of the summit. Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer."

Western media coverage of BRICS Summit 2026 focused on Trump, Ukraine, Iran and India-China rivalry. India instead delivered consensus, exposing the gap between the summit's agenda and foreign media coverage.

BRICS Summit 2026 was played down, dismissed or nearly blacked out by Western media. That didn't work

Africa has heard the compliments before.The continent of the future. The world's youngest continent. A mineral powerhouse. The next great consumer market. An indispensable voice of the Global South.All true.But recognition without influence is merely applause.The New Delhi Declaration adopted at the BRICS Summit makes a powerful case for a more representative global order and greater participation by developing economies, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America.That is welcome.But Africa should ask an uncomfortable question: where is its power in this emerging order?Africa has 54 countries and more than 1.5 billion people, yet only South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia are full members of BRICS. Nigeria and Uganda are partner countries.That is progress. It is not proportional power.And simply stuffing BRICS with dozens more members is not necessarily the solution either.Expansion without coordination risks creating another enormous international talking shop — impressive family photographs, lengthy declarations and very little ability to act.Africa therefore needs something more important than seats: a strategy.This is where the African Union should become central.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/WIONAtBRICS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WIONAtBRICS</a> | 54 African countries. Only THREE are full BRICS members. Africa doesn&#39;t need applause for its &quot;potential.&quot; It needs power proportional to it. India deserves credit for opening the door. But Africa must decide how it walks through it.<a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> brings more on… <a href="https://t.co/xmwS1LAkgK">pic.twitter.com/xmwS1LAkgK</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2099168609893576871?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Instead of African countries approaching emerging blocs primarily through individual national interests, the continent needs greater coordination around what it wants from them: infrastructure financing, industrialisation, technology transfer, energy security, agricultural transformation, value addition and reform of global financial institutions.Africa possesses many of the resources the emerging world wants. It should negotiate accordingly.India deserves recognition here.New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.That matters.India and Africa also have something important in common: neither wants the international system permanently dictated by institutions reflecting yesterday's balance of power.But partnership cannot mean replacing dependence on one centre of global power with dependence on another.Africa should neither become an appendage of the West nor a bargaining chip for the East.It should become a pole of power itself.That means BRICS should not simply ask how many more African countries it can accommodate.Africa should ask what membership actually delivers.More African flags around the BRICS table will mean little if African economies continue exporting raw minerals only to import the finished products; if infrastructure gaps persist; if Africans remain underrepresented where global financial and security decisions are made; and if the continent's enormous population translates into market size but not negotiating strength.The New Delhi Declaration talks about giving the Global South a greater voice.Good.Now Africa must use it.Because the continent does not need another invitation to somebody else's table.It needs the leverage to help decide what is served.

New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.

Africa has heard the compliments before. The continent of the future. The world's youngest continent. A mineral powerhouse. The next great consumer market. An indispensable voice of the Global South. All true. But recognition without influence is merely applause. The New Delhi Declaration adopted at the BRICS Summit makes a powerful case for a more representative global order and greater participation by developing economies, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America. That is welcome. But Africa should ask an uncomfortable question: where is its power in this emerging order? Africa has 54 countries and more than 1.5 billion people, yet only South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia are full members of BRICS. Nigeria and Uganda are partner countries. That is progress. It is not proportional power. And simply stuffing BRICS with dozens more members is not necessarily the solution either. Expansion without coordination risks creating another enormous international talking shop — impressive family photographs, lengthy declarations and very little ability to act. Africa therefore needs something more important than seats: a strategy. This is where the African Union should become central.

New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.

The Verdict | Africa is too big to remain a guest at the BRICS table

As the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi under India’s chairship concludes on Sunday (September 13), its greatest success would be the unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration. The detailed 45-page, 140-point document demonstrated that the expanded 11-member grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia can still forge consensus despite their individual differences.<h2>Consensus language on West Asia conflict</h2>Consensus demanded intensive late-night negotiations lasting until 4 am. But consensus was achieved. What was thought to be insurmountable was achieved. Iran and the UAE had to be on board with the language on the West Asia conflict. In the backdrop was the failure to produce a joint statement on the same issue during the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting earlier in the year. As chair, India facilitated the carefully worded compromise. That included expressing serious concern over escalation, deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In what looked like a counterpoint to the US expression ‘maximum pressure’, the Delhi Declaration called for “maximum restraint.” It sought the protection of civilians, respect for sovereignty and a return to dialogue. There was no blame game. And the declaration was passed with no objections, as announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brics-summit-2026-pm-modi-praises-india-s-chairmanship-sends-critical-minerals-and-supply-chain-message-on-day-2-china-xi-jinping-present-1789277773320">BRICS Summit 2026: PM Modi's 'critical minerals' and 'supply chain' message on Day 2 in front of China's Xi</a><h2>No ambiguity on terrorism: Pahalgam attack condemned</h2>A sensitive topic for India, on which it did not always get the backing of China, terrorism was a closely-watched issue. The wording was important. The declaration explicitly condemned, in the strongest terms, the April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir that left 26 people dead.It used zero-tolerance language on terrorism in all forms, cross-border movement of terrorists, financing and safe havens, and, most importantly, the ‘rejection of double standards’. Clearly, China concurred with the inclusion of such language.<h2>Support for India’s UNSC aspirations</h2>Mentioned among calls for comprehensive UN reform, including reform of the Security Council to make it more democratic, representative, effective and reflective of developing countries and the Global South, was support for India’s aspirations.China and Russia, the two permanent members of the UN Security Council from BRICS, reiterated their support for the aspirations of India and Brazil to play a greater role in the UN, including at the UNSC.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-new-delhi-declaration-adopted-with-full-consensus-a-diplomatic-win-for-india-1789283129951/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-new-delhi-declaration-adopted-with-full-consensus-a-diplomatic-win-for-india-1789283129951/embed</a><h2>Push against the West from tariffs to climate, but in subtle language</h2>It was not lost on anyone which countries the BRICS declaration was referring to when it pushed back against certain trade and climate measures. Trump tariffs and energy trade curbs have, in the past couple of years, affected several BRICS nations, particularly China, India, Russia and Brazil.The summit took a clear stance against unilateral tariffs and trade restrictions. This, as well as climate change measures such as the EU-led carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), were described as potentially unilateral, punitive, discriminatory or protectionist and inconsistent with international law.The declaration called unilateral coercive measures and sanctions contrary to international law.It called for a better position for the Global South in key financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund &nbsp;and World Bank, as well as greater representation in global trade institutions such as the World Trade Organization.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/brics-at-20-the-rule-takers-want-to-become-rule-shapers-1789237550996">BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers</a><h2>United on economic and financial cooperation</h2>The declaration made it clear that the BRICS Payment Task Force is going to continue working towards efficient, fast and low-cost cross-border payments among member countries. Without mentioning dedollarisation or a BRICS currency, it advocated local-currency trade settlements and investments.There was also the establishment of the BRICS Task Force on Growth and Development, a proposed BRICS repository for digital public infrastructure with pilot projects, and a BRICS-New Development Bank Knowledge Portal.<h2>The China-India optics that went well</h2>The China-India dynamic was being keenly watched, given that President Xi Jinping was visiting the nation after a long gap. The group gave its support to China’s 2027 chairship.&nbsp;The group achieved consensus on a wide range of issues, including global governance, multilateralism, multipolarity, sustainable growth and people-to-people ties.The spirit was one of mutual respect. The prior deadlocks were resolved.&nbsp;BRICS Summit Declartion might be largely declaratory and initiative-based. But it is far better than the paralysis seen in several other regional and multilateral organisations.The Declaration was adopted on the first day of the summit itself. But its outcomes remain subject to subsequent implementation. That can happen only when the grouping remains consensus- and respect-based.

The New Delhi Declaration was marked a BRICS consensus on a range of issues, from West Asia, terrorism, India’s UNSC aspirations, trade restrictions, and Global South representation in global organisations. 


As the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi under India’s chairship concludes on Sunday (September 13), its greatest success would be the unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration. The detailed 45-page, 140-point document demonstrated that the expanded 11-member grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia can still forge consensus despite their individual differences. Consensus language on West Asia conflict Consensus demanded intensive late-night negotiations lasting until 4 am. But consensus was achieved. What was thought to be insurmountable was achieved. Iran and the UAE had to be on board with the language on the West Asia conflict. In the backdrop was the failure to produce a joint statement on the same issue during the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting earlier in the year. As chair, India facilitated the carefully worded compromise. That included expressing serious concern over escalation, deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In what looked like a counterpoint to the US expression ‘maximum pressure’, the Delhi Declaration called for “maximum restraint.” It sought the protection of civilians, respect for sovereignty and a return to dialogue. There was no blame game. And the declaration was passed with no objections, as announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Also read: BRICS Summit 2026: PM Modi's 'critical minerals' and 'supply chain' message on Day 2 in front of China's Xi No ambiguity on terrorism: Pahalgam attack condemned A sensitive topic for India, on which it did not always get the backing of China, terrorism was a closely-watched issue. The wording was important. The declaration explicitly condemned, in the strongest terms, the April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir that left 26 people dead. It used zero-tolerance language on terrorism in all forms, cross-border movement of terrorists, financing and safe havens, and, most importantly, the ‘rejection of double standards’. Clearly, China concurred with the inclusion of such language. Support for India’s UNSC aspirations Mentioned among calls for comprehensive UN reform, including reform of the Security Council to make it more democratic, representative, effective and reflective of developing countries and the Global South, was support for India’s aspirations. China and Russia, the two permanent members of the UN Security Council from BRICS, reiterated their support for the aspirations of India and Brazil to play a greater role in the UN, including at the UNSC. https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-new-delhi-declaration-adopted-with-full-consensus-a-diplomatic-win-for-india-1789283129951/embed Push against the West from tariffs to climate, but in subtle language It was not lost on anyone which countries the BRICS declaration was referring to when it pushed back against certain trade and climate measures. Trump tariffs and energy trade curbs have, in the past couple of years, affected several BRICS nations, particularly China, India, Russia and Brazil. The summit took a clear stance against unilateral tariffs and trade restrictions. This, as well as climate change measures such as the EU-led carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), were described as potentially unilateral, punitive, discriminatory or protectionist and inconsistent with international law. The declaration called unilateral coercive measures and sanctions contrary to international law. It called for a better position for the Global South in key financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, as well as greater representation in global trade institutions such as the World Trade Organization. Also read: BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers United on economic and financial cooperation The declaration made it clear that the BRICS Payment Task Force is going to continue working towards efficient, fast and low-cost cross-border payments among member countries. Without mentioning dedollarisation or a BRICS currency, it advocated local-currency trade settlements and investments. There was also the establishment of the BRICS Task Force on Growth and Development, a proposed BRICS repository for digital public infrastructure with pilot projects, and a BRICS-New Development Bank Knowledge Portal. The China-India optics that went well The China-India dynamic was being keenly watched, given that President Xi Jinping was visiting the nation after a long gap. The group gave its support to China’s 2027 chairship. The group achieved consensus on a wide range of issues, including global governance, multilateralism, multipolarity, sustainable growth and people-to-people ties. The spirit was one of mutual respect. The prior deadlocks were resolved. BRICS Summit Declartion might be largely declaratory and initiative-based. But it is far better than the paralysis seen in several other regional and multilateral organisations. The Declaration was adopted on the first day of the summit itself. But its outcomes remain subject to subsequent implementation. That can happen only when the grouping remains consensus- and respect-based.

The New Delhi Declaration marked a BRICS consensus on a range of issues, from West Asia, terrorism, India’s UNSC aspirations, trade restrictions, and Global South representation in global organisations.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that an 11-member bloc with India and China in it can still agree on key issues?

Twenty years after the first BRIC foreign ministers met, the grouping has reached a moment that could define its next two decades. The message emerging from New Delhi is no longer simply that the Global South deserves to be heard. It is that developing and emerging powers want a greater role in deciding how the international system itself operates.Prime Minister Narendra Modi captured that ambition at the BRICS Summit by arguing that the Global South must move from being “rule-takers” to “rule-shapers.” It is a powerful formulation because it strikes at the fundamental complaint underlying BRICS: much of today's international architecture was designed around a distribution of power that no longer reflects today's world.The United Nations Security Council remains dominated by its five permanent members. Global financial institutions continue to face demands for greater developing-world representation. Meanwhile, new rules governing artificial intelligence, cyberspace, biotechnology, critical technologies and even outer space are being developed. BRICS wants the Global South involved in writing those rules rather than inheriting them.<h2>Consensus amid contradiction</h2>The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore significant. BRICS is hardly a collection of natural allies. India and China have their own strategic competition. Russia and China often envisage BRICS as a stronger geopolitical counterweight to Western power, while India and Brazil have traditionally resisted turning the grouping into an explicitly anti-Western alliance.Then there are Iran and the United Arab Emirates, whose competing geopolitical interests made consensus particularly difficult amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. Yet New Delhi produced agreement.The declaration expressed deep concern over escalating Middle Eastern tensions, urged maximum restraint and reaffirmed peaceful settlement of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. BRICS members also raised concerns over unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures that distort international trade.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed</a>That does not suddenly transform BRICS into a unified geopolitical alliance. But the ability to put fundamentally different governments behind common language matters.<h2>A rival to the United Nations?</h2>Comparisons with the United Nations require caution. BRICS is not a universal organisation, does not possess the UN's treaty architecture and cannot replicate the Security Council or the UN's enormous network of international agencies. Nor does it necessarily need to. Its potential lies elsewhere.In an increasingly fragmented international system, BRICS could evolve into another centre of multilateral coordination — particularly for countries that believe their influence has not kept pace with their economic and demographic weight.Its members already account for more than 40 per cent of humanity and roughly a quarter of global economic output. The New Development Bank has meanwhile approved nearly $43 billion worth of projects, demonstrating that BRICS has already produced institutions beyond summit diplomacy. The bigger question is whether political declarations can now translate into sustained action.<h2>The test of adulthood</h2>At twenty, BRICS has reached what India describes as a “coming of age” moment. And adulthood brings responsibilities. It is easier to demand reform than to agree on what the replacement should look like. It is easier to criticise unequal global institutions than to reconcile the competing interests of ten very different BRICS members.That will determine whether BRICS becomes an enduring pillar of twenty-first-century multilateralism or remains primarily an annual platform for declarations. The significance of New Delhi therefore lies less in whether BRICS can overthrow the existing international order. India's proposition is more subtle — and perhaps more consequential.The world does not necessarily need another group of countries dictating the rules. It needs more countries participating in writing them. For decades, much of the Global South has lived within an international architecture largely designed elsewhere. At twenty, BRICS is signalling that it no longer intends merely to occupy a seat inside that architecture. It wants a hand in redesigning it.

Celebrating twenty years, BRICS aims to transform the Global South from rule-takers into rule-shapers. Reaching consensus in New Delhi, members advocate for multilateral global architecture reform, trade fairness, and inclusive rulemaking.

Twenty years after the first BRIC foreign ministers met, the grouping has reached a moment that could define its next two decades. The message emerging from New Delhi is no longer simply that the Global South deserves to be heard. It is that developing and emerging powers want a greater role in deciding how the international system itself operates. Prime Minister Narendra Modi captured that ambition at the BRICS Summit by arguing that the Global South must move from being “rule-takers” to “rule-shapers.” It is a powerful formulation because it strikes at the fundamental complaint underlying BRICS: much of today's international architecture was designed around a distribution of power that no longer reflects today's world. The United Nations Security Council remains dominated by its five permanent members. Global financial institutions continue to face demands for greater developing-world representation. Meanwhile, new rules governing artificial intelligence, cyberspace, biotechnology, critical technologies and even outer space are being developed. BRICS wants the Global South involved in writing those rules rather than inheriting them. Consensus amid contradiction The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore significant. BRICS is hardly a collection of natural allies. India and China have their own strategic competition. Russia and China often envisage BRICS as a stronger geopolitical counterweight to Western power, while India and Brazil have traditionally resisted turning the grouping into an explicitly anti-Western alliance. Then there are Iran and the United Arab Emirates, whose competing geopolitical interests made consensus particularly difficult amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. Yet New Delhi produced agreement. The declaration expressed deep concern over escalating Middle Eastern tensions, urged maximum restraint and reaffirmed peaceful settlement of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. BRICS members also raised concerns over unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures that distort international trade. https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed That does not suddenly transform BRICS into a unified geopolitical alliance. But the ability to put fundamentally different governments behind common language matters. A rival to the United Nations? Comparisons with the United Nations require caution. BRICS is not a universal organisation, does not possess the UN's treaty architecture and cannot replicate the Security Council or the UN's enormous network of international agencies. Nor does it necessarily need to. Its potential lies elsewhere. In an increasingly fragmented international system, BRICS could evolve into another centre of multilateral coordination — particularly for countries that believe their influence has not kept pace with their economic and demographic weight. Its members already account for more than 40 per cent of humanity and roughly a quarter of global economic output. The New Development Bank has meanwhile approved nearly $43 billion worth of projects, demonstrating that BRICS has already produced institutions beyond summit diplomacy. The bigger question is whether political declarations can now translate into sustained action. The test of adulthood At twenty, BRICS has reached what India describes as a “coming of age” moment. And adulthood brings responsibilities. It is easier to demand reform than to agree on what the replacement should look like. It is easier to criticise unequal global institutions than to reconcile the competing interests of ten very different BRICS members. That will determine whether BRICS becomes an enduring pillar of twenty-first-century multilateralism or remains primarily an annual platform for declarations. The significance of New Delhi therefore lies less in whether BRICS can overthrow the existing international order. India's proposition is more subtle — and perhaps more consequential. The world does not necessarily need another group of countries dictating the rules. It needs more countries participating in writing them. For decades, much of the Global South has lived within an international architecture largely designed elsewhere. At twenty, BRICS is signalling that it no longer intends merely to occupy a seat inside that architecture. It wants a hand in redesigning it.

Celebrating twenty years, BRICS aims to transform the Global South from rule-takers into rule-shapers. Reaching consensus in New Delhi, members advocate for multilateral global architecture reform, trade fairness, and inclusive rulemaking.

BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, America once again pauses to read the names, lower the flags and remember nearly 3,000 people murdered on a morning that transformed the United States and much of the world.But a quarter-century later, remembrance alone may no longer be enough.The more difficult question is whether America learned from what followed.September 11 produced an extraordinary moment of national unity. It also unleashed a global War on Terror that would span presidencies, continents and generations.George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that sheltered it. But his administration then invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found.Barack Obama eventually oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, but his administration dramatically expanded America's use of drone warfare.Joe Biden ended America's longest war by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, but the chaotic final evacuation from Kabul left another painful image in the history of the conflict.Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.That contradiction becomes even sharper when compared with American public opinion.A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 48 per cent of Americans believe the Afghanistan war was not worth its toll and 51 per cent say the same about Iraq. Just 25 per cent believe the current Iran conflict has been worth it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | 25 years after 9/11, America remembers. But after Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran — and a rising fear of extremism from within — has America actually learned? THE VERDICT with <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/September11?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#September11</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/911Anniversary?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#911Anniversary</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/TheVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheVerdict</a> <a href="https://t.co/YLzzYu9mfH">pic.twitter.com/YLzzYu9mfH</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2098452221021352377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>The threat came home</h2>Perhaps the greatest transformation, however, is in what Americans now fear.September 11 focused American attention overwhelmingly on terrorism originating overseas.Today, 61 per cent of Americans say ideology-driven attacks by domestic extremists pose the greater threat, compared with 34 per cent who point to extremists abroad. When asked more broadly about threats to ordinary Americans, mass shootings ranked even higher.America spent decades hunting terrorism thousands of kilometres from its shores. Twenty-five years later, its citizens increasingly fear violence emerging from within their own country.That is an extraordinary reversal.<h2>The people 9/11 never stopped killing</h2>Then there is another legacy — one measured not in geopolitics but in hospital wards.Thousands of first responders, recovery workers, survivors and residents have suffered illnesses associated with exposure to the toxic aftermath of the World Trade Center collapse. This year's commemoration even added, for the first time, a moment of silence for people who later died from 9/11-related illnesses.And just days before the anniversary, Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration released the first 170,000 pages of previously withheld city records concerning air quality and the government's response after the attacks. The release followed years of litigation and campaigning by 9/11 advocates. More documents are expected over the next year.It creates a striking political juxtaposition.Former mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose public image became inseparable from his leadership after September 11, has been among Mamdani's fiercest critics. Yet Mamdani's administration is now opening records concerning what City Hall knew about toxic conditions after Ground Zero and when it knew it.For survivors and families, accountability cannot end with memorial ceremonies."Never forget" must also mean never forgetting those who survived the morning but have spent decades living with its consequences.<h2>America's unfinished lesson</h2>There is no denying that America changed after September 11.Airport security was transformed. Intelligence agencies were reorganised. Al-Qaeda's leadership was devastated. Osama bin Laden was killed.But America also paid heavily for some of the choices made in the shadow of those burning towers: long wars, expanded surveillance, enormous expenditure, civilian casualties abroad and deep political arguments at home.A quarter-century later, America is considerably more politically divided than the country that briefly united on September 12, 2001. The Financial Times notes how starkly today's polarisation contrasts with the extraordinary national solidarity immediately following the attacks.That may be the uncomfortable lesson of this anniversary.Grief without reflection can become policy.Fear without restraint can become war.And remembrance without accountability can become ceremony.America has kept its promise to never forget September 11.Twenty-five years later, the harder question is whether it has finally learned from everything that came after.&nbsp;

Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, America once again pauses to read the names, lower the flags and remember nearly 3,000 people murdered on a morning that transformed the United States and much of the world. But a quarter-century later, remembrance alone may no longer be enough. The more difficult question is whether America learned from what followed. September 11 produced an extraordinary moment of national unity. It also unleashed a global War on Terror that would span presidencies, continents and generations. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that sheltered it. But his administration then invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Barack Obama eventually oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, but his administration dramatically expanded America's use of drone warfare. Joe Biden ended America's longest war by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, but the chaotic final evacuation from Kabul left another painful image in the history of the conflict. Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran. That contradiction becomes even sharper when compared with American public opinion. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 48 per cent of Americans believe the Afghanistan war was not worth its toll and 51 per cent say the same about Iraq. Just 25 per cent believe the current Iran conflict has been worth it.

Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.

The Verdict | 25 years after 9/11: America remembers — but has it learned?

Donald Trump wants Americans to believe several things at once.The Iran war — or “military conflict,” as he has also called it — will end immediately after the November midterms. Iran cannot hold out much longer. Republicans must retain Congress. And if they do, every American adult could receive a $5,000 “Trump dividend.”There is only one problem.The arithmetic, the battlefield and even some of Trump's own advisers appear to be telling a different story.A war with two deadlinesTrump says Iran will not be able to sustain its resistance beyond the midterm elections.Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that senior advisers including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have privately discussed with Trump the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure through the remainder of his presidency — potentially beyond January 2029.That is not a minor difference.It is the difference between weeks and years.It also exposes the strange ambiguity surrounding America's confrontation with Iran. Trump himself has played down the terminology, describing it as a “military conflict” and “small potatoes” for the United States.But terminology cannot alter consequences.Americans are dead. Military assets are deployed. Oil markets have been disrupted. Fuel prices have become a political liability. And Washington is threatening further strikes against Iran.Call it a war or call it a military conflict. Americans ultimately experience its consequences through lives, prices and public money.Welcome to the Trump showThen came Dallas.Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election.Trump made clear who the central character was.“I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters.The convention became so centred on the president that Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters informally called it “Trumpapalooza.”But the spectacle also exposed the risk of building an entire congressional election around one man.Several Republicans facing difficult races stayed away. Trump described the arena as packed, although reporters observed largely empty sections in the upper levels. Online viewership was modest.The show was enormous.Whether the enthusiasm matched it is another question.$5,000 for a Republican victoryThen came Trump's biggest promise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | A war that ends after an election. A $5,000 cheque if Republicans win. A bill that could hit $1.35 TRILLION. Trump says: pretend he&#39;s on the ballot. But who pays for the promises? Tonight&#39;s <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/TheVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheVerdict</a> with <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> <a href="https://t.co/JZTgjHxqHB">pic.twitter.com/JZTgjHxqHB</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2098081923126141031?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

If Republicans retain the House and Senate, Trump says he will issue a $5,000 dividend to every American adult.It is an extraordinary proposition.With roughly 270 million American adults, distributing $5,000 to each would cost approximately $1.35 trillion.And that follows Trump's earlier proposal for a $2,000 tariff dividend — another cash promise that never materialised.Critics immediately asked the obvious question: is promising voters money if your party wins effectively buying political support?Legally, the answer is more complicated than the accusation. The proposed payment is not directly conditioned on an individual casting a Republican vote, and any actual distribution would require congressional approval.Politically, however, the optics are extraordinary.Vote Republican, Trump says, and there could be $5,000 waiting on the other side.But where does $1.35 trillion come from?That is the question the spectacle could not answer.The United States is already running enormous annual deficits and carrying a colossal national debt.American households remain concerned about affordability. The Iran conflict has put additional pressure on energy prices. Tariffs have created their own costs.Trump's answer to economic anxiety is now another enormous cheque.But governments cannot create $1.35 trillion without consequences.Either the money must come from additional revenue, spending cuts, borrowing — or some combination of all three.A dividend without a credible funding mechanism is not an economic programme.It is a promise.The Democrat at the Republican conventionThere was another extraordinary moment in Dallas.Democratic Senator John Fetterman appeared by video to introduce Republican Senator Dave McCormick, describing him as a friend and promising cooperation with Trump to protect Pennsylvania's steel industry.For Democrats, the optics were uncomfortable.But suggestions that Fetterman had somehow been “bought” go beyond the available evidence. He subsequently reaffirmed that he remains a Democrat.What his appearance demonstrated instead was something more politically interesting: the ideological fractures inside America's parties are becoming increasingly difficult to conceal.And then there is VenezuelaBehind the spectacle and the cheques sits another extraordinary economic gamble.Washington has taken a 35% position, structured through warrants, in a Venezuelan oil venture as the Trump administration attempts to turn access to Venezuela's enormous petroleum reserves into an American strategic asset.Trump has promoted the Venezuelan arrangement as a route toward greater energy security and lower fuel prices.The attraction is obvious.A prolonged confrontation with Iran threatens energy flows through the Gulf. Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves. Washington therefore has powerful incentives to diversify where its energy security comes from.But this too raises questions.The Venezuelan arrangement has already attracted scrutiny over its structure, legality and the extraordinary involvement of the Pentagon in a commercial oil venture.America is therefore fighting — or conducting a “military conflict” — against one major oil power while simultaneously deepening its economic leverage over another.That may prove strategic foresight.It may also demonstrate just how complicated and expensive America's new geopolitical order is becoming.Reality versus spectacleThis was ultimately the contradiction running through Dallas.Trump spoke about American greatness while voters worry about affordability.He promised $5,000 cheques while the government is already deeply in deficit.He predicted an imminent end to the Iran conflict while his own advisers reportedly contemplate a struggle lasting years.He asked Americans to pretend that his name is on the ballot.Perhaps that was the most revealing statement of the convention.Because November increasingly appears to be about Donald Trump — his war, his economy, his promises and his political survival.But Americans cannot pay grocery bills with political theatre.They cannot fill their tanks with applause.And before Washington writes a $1.35 trillion cheque, voters are entitled to ask the simplest question of all:Who is going to pay for it?

Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was.

Donald Trump wants Americans to believe several things at once. The Iran war — or “military conflict,” as he has also called it — will end immediately after the November midterms. Iran cannot hold out much longer. Republicans must retain Congress. And if they do, every American adult could receive a $5,000 “Trump dividend.” There is only one problem. The arithmetic, the battlefield and even some of Trump's own advisers appear to be telling a different story. A war with two deadlines Trump says Iran will not be able to sustain its resistance beyond the midterm elections. Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that senior advisers including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have privately discussed with Trump the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure through the remainder of his presidency — potentially beyond January 2029. That is not a minor difference. It is the difference between weeks and years. It also exposes the strange ambiguity surrounding America's confrontation with Iran. Trump himself has played down the terminology, describing it as a “military conflict” and “small potatoes” for the United States. But terminology cannot alter consequences. Americans are dead. Military assets are deployed. Oil markets have been disrupted. Fuel prices have become a political liability. And Washington is threatening further strikes against Iran. Call it a war or call it a military conflict. Americans ultimately experience its consequences through lives, prices and public money. Welcome to the Trump show Then came Dallas. Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters. The convention became so centred on the president that Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters informally called it “Trumpapalooza.” But the spectacle also exposed the risk of building an entire congressional election around one man. Several Republicans facing difficult races stayed away. Trump described the arena as packed, although reporters observed largely empty sections in the upper levels. Online viewership was modest. The show was enormous. Whether the enthusiasm matched it is another question. $5,000 for a Republican victory Then came Trump's biggest promise.

Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was.

The Trump Show: A $5,000 promise, a war without an end and a trillion-dollar question | The Verdict

opinions

Opinions & Blogs, News on Opinions & Blogs, stories on Opinions & Blogs, articles on Opinions & Blogs, Opinions & Blogs stories at Wion, Opinions & Blogs news, Opinions & Blogs latest news

opinions

India’s democracy is being tested. Who will answer the tough questions?

China's military gamble: The info revolution in PLA & China’s military future

What Smit Machchhar, aviation tragedies teach us about crisis management

Will AI destroy humanity, or are humans the real risk? | The Verdict

The Verdict | 10 yrs, repeated promises: Will Pakistan ever act against terror?

The Verdict | Fight for women’s safety, but don’t let violence bury the cause

Trump-Xi Summit: Grand Diplomatic Optics, But Little Substance

From tariff war to tariff flirtation: Who needs whom more, Trump or Xi?

Back to the future: The rise of technopolitics

Trump isn't on the ballot, but his presidency is | The Verdict

The Verdict | Moral policing isn’t culture or discipline, it’s crime

Trump 2.0: Dark days ahead for America’s ‘imperial presidency’

When precision fails: US commits war crime in Minab school strike, UN finds

Inside the lethal rebirth of India’s super Sukhoi

Hostile to whom? Canada looks to Europe — and Trump threatens tariffs

The Verdict | Mecca, a 'red line' and the Houthis who refuse to go away

Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight is not the problem; your gaze is

Salt air to sound waves: HAL’s homegrown trio takes wing

Western media played down BRICS Summit 2026. That didn't work

The Verdict | Africa is too big to remain a guest at the BRICS table

Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that a diverse bloc can still reach consensus?

BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers

The Verdict | 25 years after 9/11: America remembers — but has it learned?

The Trump Show: A $5,000 promise, war without end and trillion-dollar question