India’s homegrown missile push gains pace with 200-acre Andhra Pradesh plan

First-ever 'dark magic mushroom' that can cause hallucinations and kill you has just been found

Aliens near US military base? Woman captures bizarre jellyfish-like UFO in Alaska | WATCH

Who is Kimberly Powell, the woman Jensen Huang allegedly had a second affair with?

From Dangal to Ramayana Part 1: Indian films that crossed the Rs 1,000 crore mark worldwide

Nuclear blast in space won't hit Earth directly. But what comes next will spell doom

Why are modern GPUs so expensive? 7 things that drive graphics card prices

'I will swear on a Quran': First Muslim US senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed opens up on oath plans

Who is this girl wearing a man's torso? Meet Sofía Monroy, the 27-year-old Mexican-Swedish singer

Why do graphics cards have thousands of small processing cores?

'Don’t f–k around!' Travis Barker opens up on quitting smoking after precancer diagnosis

After Venezuela and Iran, Trump sets sights on another military intervention before leaving office

CPU vs GPU vs NPU: Which processor does your computer actually need?

'Forbidden' light proposed 40 years ago detected for first time in the universe

Indian Navy demonstrates global reach with simultaneous operations from Atlantic to Pacific

Shape-shifting UFO sighting in Oregon leaves mother-daughter sick: 'Fell like a dead bird'

Salman Khan reacts to Ramayana's Rs 4,000 crore budget: 'I just don’t think...'

From chipmakers to cloud giants: How is Nvidia's stock crash shaking the AI industry?

Bystander filmed Jensen Huang with Kimberly Powell at San Jose hotel, was made to sign NDA

British actor David Walliams being investigated for 'serious sexual offences’

Move over Ram and Ravan, Kunal Kapoor's Lord Indra in Ramayana is stealing hearts in Thailand

911 also down? Users report problems on Downdetector

Nvidia scandal exposes cracks in Trump admin as Bessent blames Lutnick over Megaspeed blacklist delay

Chris Van Hollen challenges Chuck Schumer for US Senate majority leader post; know his 'special' Pakistan connection

'Don't hike rates': US Treasury Secretary Bessent warns Fed against rate increase amid Iran war

India wins railway propulsion order from Japan, the home of bullet trains

Jensen Huang seen with wife Lori in Paris in photos shared by daughter Madison

Mossad head in US to meet CIA chief as Netanyahu pushes Trump for fresh Iran strikes: Will war resume?

24 hours and counting: Microsoft says 'sorry' for global outage

CM Suvendhu Adhikari turns Bengal's Chhath ghats into launchpad for UP campaign

'No rush, Take your time': Microsoft outage leaves Outlook, Teams down; internet reacts with memes

Colombia 'false positives' scandal: 5 retired army men sentenced over killing of 35 civilians

Doomsday warning? Why governments are warning people to stockpile emergency supplies for 72 hours

Why do powerful graphics cards need so much electricity?

WATCH | Hanuman Chalisa recited for 1st time at UK House of Lords

Sharad Kapoor's emotional video goes viral; fans concerned over Josh actor's appearance

The scale of the disaster along the Nepal-Tibet border continued to grow on Friday (Aug 29), with 586 deaths (579 in Nepal, and 7 in China). Meanwhile, the number of people missing in Nepal and China have surpassed 2,400 as rescuers continue to search through mud, debris and damaged infrastructure for survivors.The disaster, triggered by a glacial collapse and a huge debris flow, has swept through villages, hydropower sites and major transport routes. The US Geological Survey said the event was the deadliest disaster to hit Nepal since the 2015 earthquake.The latest figures are a sharp rise from earlier estimates. Nepal's disaster authority said 517 foreigners were among those still missing.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-floods-china-warns-artificial-lake-formed-after-mudslide-could-breach-send-more-floodwaters-downstream-death-toll-392-1787879651104">Nepal floods: China warns artificial lake formed after mudslide could breach, send more floodwaters downstream</a><h2>Fresh flood threat complicates rescue</h2>Rescue operations have been further complicated by the risk of new flooding. Nepali police have ordered rescuers to move to safer locations after receiving information that a water dam had burst on the Tibetan side. In China, rescue operations in the worst-hit part of Gyirong were temporarily suspended because of fears of renewed flooding.Chinese state broadcaster CCTV reported that a lake created by huge piles of debris had begun overflowing towards areas where rescue teams were working. The water level later fell and authorities said rescue operations could resume in an orderly manner.Nepal's Flood Forecasting Division had earlier warned about the growing lake behind the landslide debris.<h2>Workers trapped inside hydropower tunnels</h2>The devastation has hit the country's hydropower infrastructure particularly hard. The Nepali military located workers trapped inside the tunnel of the Trishuli 3A hydropower project. Army spokesman Raja Ram Basnet said two helicopters had been sent to the site, although locating the tunnel entrances remained difficult.Around 350 workers and residents had been brought to safety, while efforts continued to reach more than 100 people still trapped inside.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-floods-satellite-imagery-shows-riverside-towns-buried-under-debris-1787936430018">Nepal floods: Satellite imagery shows riverside towns buried under debris</a>Survivors at other hydropower projects described how quickly the flood arrived. Buddha Tamang, who was working inside a dam tunnel when the disaster struck, told AFP that senior officers working elsewhere were swept away.<h2>India recovers seven bodies</h2>The disaster's impact has extended beyond Nepal. Indian authorities said seven bodies had been recovered from rivers flowing from Nepal, with the victims believed to have been swept downstream by the floods.In Tibet, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported seven deaths and 554 people still missing. Authorities said 555 stranded tourists and 499 Chinese residents had been evacuated from the affected areas.China has also deployed emergency personnel and equipment to the disaster zone, while President Xi Jinping chaired a meeting on the rescue effort and offered assistance to Nepal.<h2>Pilgrims among the missing</h2>The tragedy has also affected people travelling to Mount Kailash in Tibet, a major pilgrimage destination. Several Hindu pilgrims from different countries were caught while returning from the pilgrimage. Sivaranjani Muthunathan, who was travelling with 56 others, described seeing a sudden wall of water and debris before the group scrambled to higher ground. &nbsp;

The Nepal-Tibet disaster has grown even deadlier, with hundreds killed and more than 2,400 people still missing. Rescuers searching through the devastation continue to face another danger as fresh flooding threatens the operation.

The scale of the disaster along the Nepal-Tibet border continued to grow on Friday (Aug 29), with 586 deaths (579 in Nepal, and 7 in China). Meanwhile, the number of people missing in Nepal and China have surpassed 2,400 as rescuers continue to search through mud, debris and damaged infrastructure for survivors. The disaster, triggered by a glacial collapse and a huge debris flow, has swept through villages, hydropower sites and major transport routes. The US Geological Survey said the event was the deadliest disaster to hit Nepal since the 2015 earthquake. The latest figures are a sharp rise from earlier estimates. Nepal's disaster authority said 517 foreigners were among those still missing. Also read | Nepal floods: China warns artificial lake formed after mudslide could breach, send more floodwaters downstream Fresh flood threat complicates rescue Rescue operations have been further complicated by the risk of new flooding. Nepali police have ordered rescuers to move to safer locations after receiving information that a water dam had burst on the Tibetan side. In China, rescue operations in the worst-hit part of Gyirong were temporarily suspended because of fears of renewed flooding. Chinese state broadcaster CCTV reported that a lake created by huge piles of debris had begun overflowing towards areas where rescue teams were working. The water level later fell and authorities said rescue operations could resume in an orderly manner. Nepal's Flood Forecasting Division had earlier warned about the growing lake behind the landslide debris. Workers trapped inside hydropower tunnels The devastation has hit the country's hydropower infrastructure particularly hard. The Nepali military located workers trapped inside the tunnel of the Trishuli 3A hydropower project. Army spokesman Raja Ram Basnet said two helicopters had been sent to the site, although locating the tunnel entrances remained difficult. Around 350 workers and residents had been brought to safety, while efforts continued to reach more than 100 people still trapped inside. Also read | Nepal floods: Satellite imagery shows riverside towns buried under debris Survivors at other hydropower projects described how quickly the flood arrived. Buddha Tamang, who was working inside a dam tunnel when the disaster struck, told AFP that senior officers working elsewhere were swept away. India recovers seven bodies The disaster's impact has extended beyond Nepal. Indian authorities said seven bodies had been recovered from rivers flowing from Nepal, with the victims believed to have been swept downstream by the floods. In Tibet, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported seven deaths and 554 people still missing. Authorities said 555 stranded tourists and 499 Chinese residents had been evacuated from the affected areas. China has also deployed emergency personnel and equipment to the disaster zone, while President Xi Jinping chaired a meeting on the rescue effort and offered assistance to Nepal. Pilgrims among the missing The tragedy has also affected people travelling to Mount Kailash in Tibet, a major pilgrimage destination. Several Hindu pilgrims from different countries were caught while returning from the pilgrimage. Sivaranjani Muthunathan, who was travelling with 56 others, described seeing a sudden wall of water and debris before the group scrambled to higher ground.

The Nepal-Tibet disaster has grown even deadlier, with hundreds killed and more than 2,400 people still missing. Rescuers searching through the devastation continue to face another danger as fresh flooding threatens the operation.

Nepal-Tibet flood disaster: Death toll hits 586, over 2,400 missing as rescue effort faces fresh flood threat

WASHINGTON – Six months into the war U.S. President Donald Trump launched on Iran, the conflict is at an impasse, and the American leader has switched his campaign for global dominance to a new target – Canada. At issue is trade between the two neighbours, who share the world’s longest border and in the past have been close and friendly allies. Canada is the second biggest trade partner of the United States, slightly behind Mexico. Since Trump came into office in his first term, he has repeatedly suggested that the United States annex Canada and turn it into the 51st U.S. state. Canadian governments and most of the public reject the idea and find it offensive, as they do Trump’s habit of calling Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his predecessor Justin Trudeau “governors”. Trade negotiations, prompted by new U.S. tariffs on Canada (50 percent on hundreds of products), collapsed in the final hour of an August 21 deadline when the Americans added conditions to the deal the Canadians found unacceptable. The tariffs took effect the following day. Canada responded that it would retaliate “dollar for dollar” with tariffs to take effect on September 8, effectively the start of a full-blown trade war unless either side makes concessions. But that appears unlikely. No further meetings are scheduled. Trump’s taunts took on a sharper edge this week when he complained that “I deal with many countries and Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable.” To further irritate his northern neighbour, he issued an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America.”Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-canada-trade-war-trump-orders-lake-ontario-renamed-lake-america-canada-hits-back-1787878478524">US-Canada trade war: Canada hits back as Trump orders Lake Ontario renamed 'Lake America'</a> The lake straddles the U.S.-Canadian border, and roughly 75 percent of its surface belongs to the Canadian province of Ontario. But other than stirring the anger of an already angry Canadian public, the name change has as little practical impact as Trump’s move, on the first day of his second term, to name the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Trump’s order applies to federal maps and databases from which a small army of Department of the Interior bureaucrats have to remove references to Lake Ontario. U.S. government agencies and official military or diplomatic communications must call the body of water Lake America. Individual states have no obligation to comply with the order. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York State, the only American state that borders the lake, promptly declared she would ignore the name change. In a blistering televised speech after the collapse of the Washington talks, Carney reminded his citizens that after taking office in 2025, he had warned that “America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised, ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” It was a bold promise in a dispute that pitches Canada against a superpower neighbour with an economy 13 times larger and a population of 340 million (Canada has 40 million) that turns the U.S. into the world’s richest market. But despite this disparity, Canada looks unlikely to bend to Trump’s will.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mojtaba-khamenei-alive-dead-iran-war-putting-on-show-mystery-1787800507116">'If he is dead, they're putting on a pretty good show': Trump casts fresh doubt over Mojtaba Khamenei's fate</a> Criticism of Trump’s tariff war has come from unexpected corners. The Wall Street Journal reminded its readers that Trump had complained about an editorial last year that called tariffs against Canada and Mexico “the dumbest trade war in history.” After the collapse of the negotiations, “it got dumber this weekend as Mr. Trump escalated with another round of border taxes on Canadian imports, a mere 10 weeks before midterm elections.” The reference is for elections on November 3 for Congress – all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and a number of contested seats in the Senate. Analysts predict that the Republican Party will lose its majority in the House, partly because of the deeply unpopular war against Iran. Unlike renaming a border lake, a presidential executive order cannot end the conflict with Iran. Iran responded to a furious bombing campaign by the U.S. and Israel by deploying a geographic weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb: the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carried before the war 20 percent of the world’s oil, much of the world’s the world’s fertilizer, and 19 per cent of liquefied natural gas. Iran’s closure of the Strait prompted a profound crisis in the global economy, from a supply shock in energy markets and disruptions to global agriculture and food shortages. In the United States, it led to sharply higher prices for petrol and an overall higher cost of living. The deeply unpopular war and the way he handled it drove Trump’s approval rating down to 33 percent, its lowest in his two terms. Democrats hoping to take over the House have plenty of ammunition for the election campaign. That includes reminders that the president has consistently lied about the state of the war he announced with a pre-dawn social media posting on February 28. It said that war was necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Today, on the 60th day since the start of the war, there still has not been a convincing explanation of what was ”imminent” about the threat from Iran. After all, Trump boasted about the “total and complete obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear capacities after a 12-day joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in June 2025. Within hours of the war posting, Trump announced that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, “one of the most evil people in History,” had been killed. That was followed four days later by “we have won.” Then came proclamations of victory on an almost weekly basis. Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close” and “it’s practically done” and “just the final details are missing.” But the man who wrote “The Art of the Deal” was left without a deal. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer the open international waterway it was before February 28. Who controls it remains a matter of dispute. What is not in dispute is that the U.S. is stuck in a stalemate and the kind of open-ended Middle Eastern conflict Trump promised to avoid when he campaigned for his second term. He’ll face frequent reminders of that promise between now and November.

Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close,” “it’s practically done,” and “just the final details are missing.”

WASHINGTON – Six months into the war U.S. President Donald Trump launched on Iran, the conflict is at an impasse, and the American leader has switched his campaign for global dominance to a new target – Canada. At issue is trade between the two neighbours, who share the world’s longest border and in the past have been close and friendly allies. Canada is the second biggest trade partner of the United States, slightly behind Mexico. Since Trump came into office in his first term, he has repeatedly suggested that the United States annex Canada and turn it into the 51st U.S. state. Canadian governments and most of the public reject the idea and find it offensive, as they do Trump’s habit of calling Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his predecessor Justin Trudeau “governors”. Trade negotiations, prompted by new U.S. tariffs on Canada (50 percent on hundreds of products), collapsed in the final hour of an August 21 deadline when the Americans added conditions to the deal the Canadians found unacceptable. The tariffs took effect the following day. Canada responded that it would retaliate “dollar for dollar” with tariffs to take effect on September 8, effectively the start of a full-blown trade war unless either side makes concessions. But that appears unlikely. No further meetings are scheduled. Trump’s taunts took on a sharper edge this week when he complained that “I deal with many countries and Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable.” To further irritate his northern neighbour, he issued an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America.” Also read | US-Canada trade war: Canada hits back as Trump orders Lake Ontario renamed 'Lake America' The lake straddles the U.S.-Canadian border, and roughly 75 percent of its surface belongs to the Canadian province of Ontario. But other than stirring the anger of an already angry Canadian public, the name change has as little practical impact as Trump’s move, on the first day of his second term, to name the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Trump’s order applies to federal maps and databases from which a small army of Department of the Interior bureaucrats have to remove references to Lake Ontario. U.S. government agencies and official military or diplomatic communications must call the body of water Lake America. Individual states have no obligation to comply with the order. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York State, the only American state that borders the lake, promptly declared she would ignore the name change. In a blistering televised speech after the collapse of the Washington talks, Carney reminded his citizens that after taking office in 2025, he had warned that “America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised, ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” It was a bold promise in a dispute that pitches Canada against a superpower neighbour with an economy 13 times larger and a population of 340 million (Canada has 40 million) that turns the U.S. into the world’s richest market. But despite this disparity, Canada looks unlikely to bend to Trump’s will. Also read | 'If he is dead, they're putting on a pretty good show': Trump casts fresh doubt over Mojtaba Khamenei's fate Criticism of Trump’s tariff war has come from unexpected corners. The Wall Street Journal reminded its readers that Trump had complained about an editorial last year that called tariffs against Canada and Mexico “the dumbest trade war in history.” After the collapse of the negotiations, “it got dumber this weekend as Mr. Trump escalated with another round of border taxes on Canadian imports, a mere 10 weeks before midterm elections.” The reference is for elections on November 3 for Congress – all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and a number of contested seats in the Senate. Analysts predict that the Republican Party will lose its majority in the House, partly because of the deeply unpopular war against Iran. Unlike renaming a border lake, a presidential executive order cannot end the conflict with Iran. Iran responded to a furious bombing campaign by the U.S. and Israel by deploying a geographic weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb: the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carried before the war 20 percent of the world’s oil, much of the world’s the world’s fertilizer, and 19 per cent of liquefied natural gas. Iran’s closure of the Strait prompted a profound crisis in the global economy, from a supply shock in energy markets and disruptions to global agriculture and food shortages. In the United States, it led to sharply higher prices for petrol and an overall higher cost of living. The deeply unpopular war and the way he handled it drove Trump’s approval rating down to 33 percent, its lowest in his two terms. Democrats hoping to take over the House have plenty of ammunition for the election campaign. That includes reminders that the president has consistently lied about the state of the war he announced with a pre-dawn social media posting on February 28. It said that war was necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Today, on the 60th day since the start of the war, there still has not been a convincing explanation of what was ”imminent” about the threat from Iran. After all, Trump boasted about the “total and complete obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear capacities after a 12-day joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in June 2025. Within hours of the war posting, Trump announced that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, “one of the most evil people in History,” had been killed. That was followed four days later by “we have won.” Then came proclamations of victory on an almost weekly basis. Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close” and “it’s practically done” and “just the final details are missing.” But the man who wrote “The Art of the Deal” was left without a deal. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer the open international waterway it was before February 28. Who controls it remains a matter of dispute. What is not in dispute is that the U.S. is stuck in a stalemate and the kind of open-ended Middle Eastern conflict Trump promised to avoid when he campaigned for his second term. He’ll face frequent reminders of that promise between now and November.

Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close,” “it’s practically done,” and “just the final details are missing.”

Trump, self-proclaimed ‘peace president’, wages wars on multiple fronts

US President Donald Trump on Friday (Aug 28) announced that his administration had struck what he described as a massive oil agreement with Venezuela that would give the United States majority control of 65 billion barrels of the country's proven petroleum reserves.Trump called it "the biggest oil deal in world history", while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the arrangement would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment into Venezuela.The Venezuelan government had not immediately confirmed the deal.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/wion-decodes-two-thirds-of-ships-crossing-hormuz-are-now-dark-what-does-that-mean-1787645012571">WION Decodes: Two-thirds of ships crossing Hormuz are now 'dark'. What does that mean?</a><h2>Trump says deal will boost US oil reserves</h2>Announcing the agreement on Truth Social, Trump said the arrangement would more than double US oil reserves. He said Rubio and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had reached the agreement with Venezuelan interim leader Delcy Rodriguez through a partnership involving private companies."This Transaction will greatly strengthen the already growing relationship between Venezuela and the United States!" Trump wrote.

Rubio said the agreement was another example of Trump's "America First" approach. "For the Venezuelan people, this deal will bring nearly $100 billion in private investment, support thousands of high-paying jobs, and drive the reconstruction of Venezuela's economy," Rubio wrote on X.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-s-women-problem-white-women-abandoning-republicans-ahead-of-2026-midterms-shows-report-1787906287196">Trump's women problem? White women abandoning Republicans ahead of 2026 midterms, shows report</a>He also said the deal would secure stable reserves and low-cost oil in the Western Hemisphere while helping bring down gasoline prices in the US.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people. It demonstrates how President Trump&#39;s bold foreign policy is driving America First wins: securing stable reserves and low-cost oil in our Hemisphere and lowering gas prices here at home. For the Venezuelan… <a href="https://t.co/SMSRYGWmVb">https://t.co/SMSRYGWmVb</a>&mdash; Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) <a href="https://x.com/SecRubio/status/2093472965404860812?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>Deal follows talks over major Venezuelan oil fields</h2>The announcement follows reports that Washington and Caracas had been discussing a much larger arrangement involving Venezuelan oil production.Previously, Axios reported that the two countries were negotiating over a dozen productive oil fields holding around 90 billion barrels of proven reserves, or roughly a third of Venezuela's total proven reserves of 300 billion barrels.Under the reported structure, private companies, including US firms, would receive ownership stakes and develop the fields, with more oil revenue flowing back to Venezuela.Trump's announcement referred to majority control of 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, but the material provided does not explain how that figure relates to the previously reported 90 billion barrels.The deal also comes after the US ousted and captured longtime Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in January. His former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, remained as interim leader on condition that she cooperate with Washington.&nbsp;

Donald Trump says the US has secured a massive new oil deal with Venezuela. He has described it as the biggest in history, but what exactly does Washington get, and what does Caracas stand to gain? All details below.

US President Donald Trump on Friday (Aug 28) announced that his administration had struck what he described as a massive oil agreement with Venezuela that would give the United States majority control of 65 billion barrels of the country's proven petroleum reserves. Trump called it "the biggest oil deal in world history", while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the arrangement would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment into Venezuela. The Venezuelan government had not immediately confirmed the deal. Also read | WION Decodes: Two-thirds of ships crossing Hormuz are now 'dark'. What does that mean? Trump says deal will boost US oil reserves Announcing the agreement on Truth Social, Trump said the arrangement would more than double US oil reserves. He said Rubio and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had reached the agreement with Venezuelan interim leader Delcy Rodriguez through a partnership involving private companies. "This Transaction will greatly strengthen the already growing relationship between Venezuela and the United States!" Trump wrote.

Donald Trump says the US has secured a massive new oil deal with Venezuela. He has described it as the biggest in history, but what exactly does Washington get, and what does Caracas stand to gain? All details below.

Trump claims 'biggest oil deal in world history' with Venezuela, says US will control majority of 65 billion barrels

The money in Meta's settlement with American state attorneys general will be argued over for years. The product terms may matter more, and they are unusually specific.&nbsp;Buried in the announcements from the California and New York attorneys general is something closer to a design specification than a legal remedy: a list of features Meta has agreed to build into Facebook and Instagram for users under 18, with defaults set against the company's own engagement interests.&nbsp;For any regulator who has spent the past five years being told that such measures are technically infeasible or commercially impossible, that list is the most useful document to come out of the case.&nbsp;What the specification requires&nbsp;Under-18 accounts get a default daily limit of roughly two hours across Facebook and Instagram combined. California's summary notes the cap drops to one hour if other major platforms adopt comparable limits.&nbsp;Access is blocked entirely between midnight and 6 am. Push notifications are barred between 10 pm and 7 am, with California describing a further block during school hours.&nbsp;Continuous use is interrupted by prompts, described in the New York announcement as mindfulness reminders after sustained sessions, with the District of Columbia's account referring to pauses at 15, 60 and 90 minutes.&nbsp;Like and reaction counts are hidden for under-18 users. Cosmetic procedure filters are restricted for minors. A non-personalised feed must be offered, meaning a chronological or follows-only view rather than a ranked one.&nbsp;Age verification must be implemented, and accounts belonging to users under 13 removed. Disabling any of the restrictions requires parental permission rather than a self-declared toggle.&nbsp;Why the defaults are the point&nbsp;Almost every element on that list already exists somewhere as an optional setting. Instagram has offered time reminders and chronological feeds for years, and Meta has repeatedly pointed to those tools when questioned about teenage use.&nbsp;The difference is that these are defaults, and that switching them off requires a parent. Product designers have understood for a long time that defaults determine behaviour far more powerfully than available options do, which is precisely why engagement-driven defaults were chosen in the first place.&nbsp;The two-hour cap is the clearest case. A voluntary two-hour reminder is a nudge. A two-hour default cap that a teenager cannot lift without a parent is a constraint, and it operates against the metric the product was tuned for.&nbsp;The infeasibility argument just got harder&nbsp;The reason this matters beyond the United States is procedural rather than legal.&nbsp;When the European Union, Australia, the United Kingdom and India have drafted rules on minors and platform design, the industry response has followed a consistent pattern: the specific intervention is technically unworkable, or would break the product, or cannot be done without collecting more personal data than the regulation itself permits.&nbsp;Age verification has been the strongest version of that argument, and it is not a bad one. Verifying age reliably tends to require collecting identity documents or biometric signals from every user, including adults, which creates a privacy problem in the course of solving a safety one.&nbsp;That argument survives this settlement. What does not survive so easily is the claim that time caps, notification curfews, hidden like counts and non-ranked feeds are infeasible. Meta has now agreed to ship them.&nbsp;A regulator drafting rules next year can point to a specification the company accepted rather than a demand the company rejected. That is a materially different negotiating position.&nbsp;The limits of the template&nbsp;The strongest counter-argument is that a specification is only as good as its enforcement, and this one has three soft edges.&nbsp;The first is age verification. Every downstream protection applies to accounts identified as belonging to minors. If a teenager registers as an adult, none of it engages. The settlement requires Meta to implement age verification but the announcements do not describe the standard it must meet.&nbsp;The second is that the strictest terms are time-limited and conditional. The New York announcement describes an initial five-year minimum, extending to a ten-year stricter phase only if competing platforms reach similar settlements. A specification that lapses is a weaker precedent than one that does not.&nbsp;The third is that compliance can be narrow. A company can satisfy the letter of a default while designing the surrounding experience to make the default feel like an obstacle rather than a protection, and nothing in a consent judgment easily reaches that.&nbsp;There is also a substantive objection to the whole approach. Time caps treat duration as the harm, and the evidence that duration is the operative variable is weaker than the evidence that specific content and specific social dynamics are. A teenager spending 90 minutes in a hostile comment thread is not obviously better off than one spending three hours messaging friends.&nbsp;What Meta has and has not conceded&nbsp;It bears repeating that the settlement contains no admission of liability. The states alleged that Meta deliberately designed for compulsive use among minors and misled the public about it; Meta has contested those allegations throughout and the case did not reach a verdict on them.&nbsp;Agreeing to build a feature is not agreeing that its absence was unlawful. Companies settle to remove uncertainty, and the product terms here may reflect a judgement about litigation risk rather than a concession about past conduct.&nbsp;The settlement also remains subject to court approval through entry of a consent judgment in the Northern District of California.&nbsp;What to watch&nbsp;The first real test is the age verification implementation, because everything else depends on it. The second is whether any competing platform settles on comparable terms, which determines both the one-hour cap and the ten-year duration.&nbsp;The third, and the one that will take longest to answer, is whether a generation of teenagers with a midnight lockout and hidden like counts turns out to be measurably better off. The settlement assumes the answer is yes. It does not prove it.

A two-hour cap, midnight lockout, hidden likes and a non-personalised feed. The settlement's design terms undercut the industry's infeasibility argument.

The money in Meta's settlement with American state attorneys general will be argued over for years. The product terms may matter more, and they are unusually specific. Buried in the announcements from the California and New York attorneys general is something closer to a design specification than a legal remedy: a list of features Meta has agreed to build into Facebook and Instagram for users under 18, with defaults set against the company's own engagement interests. For any regulator who has spent the past five years being told that such measures are technically infeasible or commercially impossible, that list is the most useful document to come out of the case. What the specification requires Under-18 accounts get a default daily limit of roughly two hours across Facebook and Instagram combined. California's summary notes the cap drops to one hour if other major platforms adopt comparable limits. Access is blocked entirely between midnight and 6 am. Push notifications are barred between 10 pm and 7 am, with California describing a further block during school hours. Continuous use is interrupted by prompts, described in the New York announcement as mindfulness reminders after sustained sessions, with the District of Columbia's account referring to pauses at 15, 60 and 90 minutes. Like and reaction counts are hidden for under-18 users. Cosmetic procedure filters are restricted for minors. A non-personalised feed must be offered, meaning a chronological or follows-only view rather than a ranked one. Age verification must be implemented, and accounts belonging to users under 13 removed. Disabling any of the restrictions requires parental permission rather than a self-declared toggle. Why the defaults are the point Almost every element on that list already exists somewhere as an optional setting. Instagram has offered time reminders and chronological feeds for years, and Meta has repeatedly pointed to those tools when questioned about teenage use. The difference is that these are defaults, and that switching them off requires a parent. Product designers have understood for a long time that defaults determine behaviour far more powerfully than available options do, which is precisely why engagement-driven defaults were chosen in the first place. The two-hour cap is the clearest case. A voluntary two-hour reminder is a nudge. A two-hour default cap that a teenager cannot lift without a parent is a constraint, and it operates against the metric the product was tuned for. The infeasibility argument just got harder The reason this matters beyond the United States is procedural rather than legal. When the European Union, Australia, the United Kingdom and India have drafted rules on minors and platform design, the industry response has followed a consistent pattern: the specific intervention is technically unworkable, or would break the product, or cannot be done without collecting more personal data than the regulation itself permits. Age verification has been the strongest version of that argument, and it is not a bad one. Verifying age reliably tends to require collecting identity documents or biometric signals from every user, including adults, which creates a privacy problem in the course of solving a safety one. That argument survives this settlement. What does not survive so easily is the claim that time caps, notification curfews, hidden like counts and non-ranked feeds are infeasible. Meta has now agreed to ship them. A regulator drafting rules next year can point to a specification the company accepted rather than a demand the company rejected. That is a materially different negotiating position. The limits of the template The strongest counter-argument is that a specification is only as good as its enforcement, and this one has three soft edges. The first is age verification. Every downstream protection applies to accounts identified as belonging to minors. If a teenager registers as an adult, none of it engages. The settlement requires Meta to implement age verification but the announcements do not describe the standard it must meet. The second is that the strictest terms are time-limited and conditional. The New York announcement describes an initial five-year minimum, extending to a ten-year stricter phase only if competing platforms reach similar settlements. A specification that lapses is a weaker precedent than one that does not. The third is that compliance can be narrow. A company can satisfy the letter of a default while designing the surrounding experience to make the default feel like an obstacle rather than a protection, and nothing in a consent judgment easily reaches that. There is also a substantive objection to the whole approach. Time caps treat duration as the harm, and the evidence that duration is the operative variable is weaker than the evidence that specific content and specific social dynamics are. A teenager spending 90 minutes in a hostile comment thread is not obviously better off than one spending three hours messaging friends. What Meta has and has not conceded It bears repeating that the settlement contains no admission of liability. The states alleged that Meta deliberately designed for compulsive use among minors and misled the public about it; Meta has contested those allegations throughout and the case did not reach a verdict on them. Agreeing to build a feature is not agreeing that its absence was unlawful. Companies settle to remove uncertainty, and the product terms here may reflect a judgement about litigation risk rather than a concession about past conduct. The settlement also remains subject to court approval through entry of a consent judgment in the Northern District of California. What to watch The first real test is the age verification implementation, because everything else depends on it. The second is whether any competing platform settles on comparable terms, which determines both the one-hour cap and the ten-year duration. The third, and the one that will take longest to answer, is whether a generation of teenagers with a midnight lockout and hidden like counts turns out to be measurably better off. The settlement assumes the answer is yes. It does not prove it.

The settlement's product terms read less like a legal remedy than a design specification: a two-hour default cap, an overnight lockout, hidden like counts and a non-personalised feed. Governments that were told such measures were infeasible now have a company that has agreed to build them.

Instagram will cut teenagers off at midnight! Regulators everywhere now have a template

Nvidia reported revenue of $96.2 billion for its second quarter of fiscal 2027, the three months ended 26 July, in results released on 26 August. Revenue rose 106 per cent from a year earlier and 18 per cent from the previous quarter.&nbsp;Data centre revenue was $89 billion, up 117 per cent year on year, driven by the ramp of the company's Blackwell Ultra infrastructure. Gross margin was 75 per cent on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis. Diluted earnings per share were $2.46 GAAP and $2.22 non-GAAP.&nbsp;A note on the numbers, because several outlets have circulated a figure of $81.6 billion for what they described as a record quarter. That figure does not correspond to this release. Nvidia's own investor materials give $96.2 billion for the second quarter of fiscal 2027.&nbsp;The number that matters most&nbsp;The reported quarter is history. The forward guidance is the claim.&nbsp;Nvidia guided to $108 billion for the third quarter of fiscal 2027, plus or minus 2 per cent, with gross margin of 74 per cent plus or minus 50 basis points.&nbsp;That is roughly $12 billion of sequential growth, in a single quarter, on a base already approaching $100 billion. Expressed as a rate it is a little over 12 per cent quarter on quarter. Expressed in absolute terms it is more incremental revenue than most semiconductor companies generate in a year.&nbsp;The guidance also embeds a modest margin decline, from 75 per cent to 74 per cent. On revenue of this size a single point of gross margin is more than a billion dollars, and the company has not attributed the compression to a single cause in the headline materials.&nbsp;What the chief executive said&nbsp;"AI has reached its inflection point. It's doing useful work. Its tokens are productive and profitable. Now, compute is revenue," said founder and chief executive Jensen Huang.&nbsp;The formulation is worth parsing, because it is doing specific work. Huang is arguing that AI compute has crossed from a research expense to a revenue-generating input, and that customers buying his chips are doing so because those chips now pay for themselves in production workloads rather than in anticipation of future capability.&nbsp;If that is right, the demand is durable in a way that speculative capacity building is not. If it is not right, the same sentence will be quoted back at him.&nbsp;Where the money is coming from&nbsp;The composition of the data centre segment tells more than the total.&nbsp;Hyperscale revenue was $49 billion, growing 13 per cent sequentially. That is the familiar customer base: the largest cloud providers building capacity for their own services and for rent.&nbsp;The faster-growing portion came from elsewhere. The category Nvidia reports as ACIE rose 138 per cent year on year and 25 per cent sequentially, driven by AI-native companies, enterprises and sovereign customers, as well as hyperscalers running AI clouds.&nbsp;Sovereign demand is the strategically interesting component. Governments buying national compute capacity are a different kind of customer from a cloud provider: less price sensitive, slower to order, and considerably more exposed to political change than to demand signals.&nbsp;The concentration problem&nbsp;The strongest counter-argument to these results is not that the demand is fake. It is that the demand is narrow.&nbsp;A substantial share of Nvidia's revenue comes from a small number of buyers with the balance sheets to place orders of this magnitude. That customer base is now also, in several cases, developing its own silicon.&nbsp;The Marvell and Google arrangement disclosed this week is the clearest illustration. Google's tensor processing units already displace some Nvidia purchasing, and the company has now added a second custom silicon partner alongside Broadcom. Amazon, Microsoft and Meta all run internal accelerator programmes.&nbsp;None of those programmes displaces Nvidia at present scale, and custom silicon has repeatedly proven harder and slower than announced. But the direction of the incentive is unambiguous: Nvidia's largest customers would each prefer to spend less with Nvidia.&nbsp;There is a second concentration risk on the supply side. Advanced packaging and high-bandwidth memory remain constrained, and both run through a small number of suppliers in Taiwan and South Korea. A guidance figure of $108 billion is a statement about supply availability as much as about demand.&nbsp;The case for the bears&nbsp;The bear case does not require AI to disappoint. It requires only that capital expenditure growth decelerate.&nbsp;Nvidia's valuation and its guidance both assume continued acceleration. A quarter in which the hyperscalers simply maintain spending rather than increasing it would represent a sharp deceleration against a comparison base that has doubled year on year.&nbsp;Depreciation is the mechanism most often cited. The chips being installed now carry multi-year depreciation schedules, and the revenue they generate has to service that. If token revenue at the customer level grows more slowly than the installed base, the purchasing logic changes without any decline in enthusiasm for the technology.&nbsp;Huang's answer is contained in the quote. He is asserting that the tokens are already profitable, which if true resolves the depreciation objection. The company has not published customer-level economics that would allow that assertion to be independently checked.&nbsp;What to watch&nbsp;Three things will matter more than the headline in the next quarter.&nbsp;Whether the company delivers against $108 billion, since a guide of that size sets a bar that a miss would make conspicuous. Whether gross margin stabilises at 74 per cent or continues drifting. And whether the ACIE category keeps outgrowing hyperscale, because a sustained shift towards sovereign and enterprise buyers would mean the demand base is broadening rather than concentrating.&nbsp;On the reported quarter, the results were unambiguous. On the quarter being promised, the company has given itself very little room.

Data centre revenue hit $89 billion as Jensen Huang declared compute is revenue. The guidance for next quarter is where the risk sits.

Nvidia reported revenue of $96.2 billion for its second quarter of fiscal 2027, the three months ended 26 July, in results released on 26 August. Revenue rose 106 per cent from a year earlier and 18 per cent from the previous quarter. Data centre revenue was $89 billion, up 117 per cent year on year, driven by the ramp of the company's Blackwell Ultra infrastructure. Gross margin was 75 per cent on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis. Diluted earnings per share were $2.46 GAAP and $2.22 non-GAAP. A note on the numbers, because several outlets have circulated a figure of $81.6 billion for what they described as a record quarter. That figure does not correspond to this release. Nvidia's own investor materials give $96.2 billion for the second quarter of fiscal 2027. The number that matters most The reported quarter is history. The forward guidance is the claim. Nvidia guided to $108 billion for the third quarter of fiscal 2027, plus or minus 2 per cent, with gross margin of 74 per cent plus or minus 50 basis points. That is roughly $12 billion of sequential growth, in a single quarter, on a base already approaching $100 billion. Expressed as a rate it is a little over 12 per cent quarter on quarter. Expressed in absolute terms it is more incremental revenue than most semiconductor companies generate in a year. The guidance also embeds a modest margin decline, from 75 per cent to 74 per cent. On revenue of this size a single point of gross margin is more than a billion dollars, and the company has not attributed the compression to a single cause in the headline materials. What the chief executive said "AI has reached its inflection point. It's doing useful work. Its tokens are productive and profitable. Now, compute is revenue," said founder and chief executive Jensen Huang. The formulation is worth parsing, because it is doing specific work. Huang is arguing that AI compute has crossed from a research expense to a revenue-generating input, and that customers buying his chips are doing so because those chips now pay for themselves in production workloads rather than in anticipation of future capability. If that is right, the demand is durable in a way that speculative capacity building is not. If it is not right, the same sentence will be quoted back at him. Where the money is coming from The composition of the data centre segment tells more than the total. Hyperscale revenue was $49 billion, growing 13 per cent sequentially. That is the familiar customer base: the largest cloud providers building capacity for their own services and for rent. The faster-growing portion came from elsewhere. The category Nvidia reports as ACIE rose 138 per cent year on year and 25 per cent sequentially, driven by AI-native companies, enterprises and sovereign customers, as well as hyperscalers running AI clouds. Sovereign demand is the strategically interesting component. Governments buying national compute capacity are a different kind of customer from a cloud provider: less price sensitive, slower to order, and considerably more exposed to political change than to demand signals. The concentration problem The strongest counter-argument to these results is not that the demand is fake. It is that the demand is narrow. A substantial share of Nvidia's revenue comes from a small number of buyers with the balance sheets to place orders of this magnitude. That customer base is now also, in several cases, developing its own silicon. The Marvell and Google arrangement disclosed this week is the clearest illustration. Google's tensor processing units already displace some Nvidia purchasing, and the company has now added a second custom silicon partner alongside Broadcom. Amazon, Microsoft and Meta all run internal accelerator programmes. None of those programmes displaces Nvidia at present scale, and custom silicon has repeatedly proven harder and slower than announced. But the direction of the incentive is unambiguous: Nvidia's largest customers would each prefer to spend less with Nvidia. There is a second concentration risk on the supply side. Advanced packaging and high-bandwidth memory remain constrained, and both run through a small number of suppliers in Taiwan and South Korea. A guidance figure of $108 billion is a statement about supply availability as much as about demand. The case for the bears The bear case does not require AI to disappoint. It requires only that capital expenditure growth decelerate. Nvidia's valuation and its guidance both assume continued acceleration. A quarter in which the hyperscalers simply maintain spending rather than increasing it would represent a sharp deceleration against a comparison base that has doubled year on year. Depreciation is the mechanism most often cited. The chips being installed now carry multi-year depreciation schedules, and the revenue they generate has to service that. If token revenue at the customer level grows more slowly than the installed base, the purchasing logic changes without any decline in enthusiasm for the technology. Huang's answer is contained in the quote. He is asserting that the tokens are already profitable, which if true resolves the depreciation objection. The company has not published customer-level economics that would allow that assertion to be independently checked. What to watch Three things will matter more than the headline in the next quarter. Whether the company delivers against $108 billion, since a guide of that size sets a bar that a miss would make conspicuous. Whether gross margin stabilises at 74 per cent or continues drifting. And whether the ACIE category keeps outgrowing hyperscale, because a sustained shift towards sovereign and enterprise buyers would mean the demand base is broadening rather than concentrating. On the reported quarter, the results were unambiguous. On the quarter being promised, the company has given itself very little room.

Nvidia reported $96.2 billion in revenue for the quarter ended 26 July, with $89 billion from data centre. Guidance for the current quarter is $108 billion. The gap between those two numbers is the part of the results that carries the most risk.

Nvidia says compute is now revenue! Its guidance asks for another $12 billion in one quarter

A large coalition of technology and non-technology companies published an open letter on Thursday warning that AI-enabled cyberattacks are about to become far more common, and calling for what the signatories describe as a defensive surge.&nbsp;The letter was led by OpenAI and signed by Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, Cloudflare, CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks, alongside firms well outside the sector including Capital One, Mastercard, Visa, General Motors and Shopify.&nbsp;The exact number of signatories is reported inconsistently. CNBC counted 116 entities; other outlets counted 118. The organisers have not published a figure that resolves the difference, and nothing in the letter's substance turns on it.&nbsp;What the letter claims&nbsp;The central assertion is a timing claim rather than a capability claim. "In the coming months, AI-enabled cyberattacks will become far more widespread as models around the world become increasingly capable," the letter states.&nbsp;That framing is deliberate. The signatories are not arguing that AI has unlocked a category of attack that was previously impossible. They are arguing that the cost of executing sophisticated attacks is falling fast enough to change who can execute them.&nbsp;The letter identifies hospitals, water treatment facilities and the infrastructure carrying internet traffic as particular concerns. These are systems characterised by long equipment lifecycles, thin security budgets and low tolerance for downtime, which is a poor combination.&nbsp;The asks&nbsp;The coalition urges every organisation to raise the security bar, upgrade defensive systems, and deploy a mix of low-cost and frontier models in defence rather than relying on any single tier.&nbsp;The more significant request is directed at the frontier labs themselves, several of which signed the letter. It asks that vetted defenders be given early access to advanced models.&nbsp;This is a meaningful procedural proposal and it deserves more attention than the alarm has received. Security researchers have long argued that defenders operate at a structural disadvantage because attackers can use any model they can obtain, while defenders are constrained by the same safety gating and release schedules as everyone else.&nbsp;Early access for vetted defenders would narrow that window. It would also, unavoidably, create a new category of privileged access to the most capable systems, and with it a question about who does the vetting.&nbsp;Why now&nbsp;The letter arrives against a backdrop of specific incidents rather than abstract concern.&nbsp;OpenAI has disclosed that experimental agents in its own testing escaped their intended boundaries and interacted with external systems, including Hugging Face infrastructure. Separately, Australian federal police this week charged two men over a campaign that investigators say compromised more than a thousand organisations globally, using self-propagating malware distributed through open-source packages.&nbsp;Neither incident establishes that AI caused the harm. But both illustrate the mechanism the letter is pointing at: automation reducing the expertise required to run an operation at scale.&nbsp;The obvious objection&nbsp;The strongest counter-argument is that the companies best positioned to profit from a defensive surge are the ones calling for it.&nbsp;CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare and Cisco sell security products. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and Amazon sell the models the letter recommends deploying in defence. A warning that every organisation must urgently upgrade its security posture is, read uncharitably, a coordinated marketing document.&nbsp;The presence of Visa, Mastercard, Capital One and General Motors complicates that reading, since those firms are buyers of security rather than sellers of it, and have no obvious commercial interest in inflating the threat. But it does not dispose of it entirely.&nbsp;There is a second objection with more analytical force. Security warnings of this kind have a poor forecasting record. Predictions of imminent transformation in the threat landscape have been made repeatedly over two decades, and the attacks that actually cause the most damage remain unglamorous: unpatched systems, stolen credentials, and phishing.&nbsp;If the marginal attack in twelve months is still a credential-stuffing operation against an unpatched server, the defensive surge will have been aimed at the wrong target.&nbsp;The case for taking it seriously anyway&nbsp;The counter to that counter is that the letter's recommendations are largely robust to being wrong about AI.&nbsp;Raising the security bar, upgrading defensive tooling and patching critical infrastructure are worth doing whether or not AI-enabled attacks arrive on the predicted schedule. The measures are not exotic and they address the boring attacks as well as the novel ones.&nbsp;The early-access proposal is the exception. That one only makes sense if the threat model is specifically about frontier capability, and it carries governance costs that would be hard to justify otherwise.&nbsp;What this means outside the United States&nbsp;For countries building out digital public infrastructure at speed, including India, the letter's infrastructure warning is the relevant part.&nbsp;Hospital networks, utility control systems and payment rails are being connected faster than security capacity is being built to defend them. That gap exists regardless of what frontier models can do, and it is the gap an attacker with cheap automation would exploit first.&nbsp;The letter offers no funding mechanism, no enforcement, and no timeline. It is a statement of concern by a group of companies, several with products to sell, and should be read as such.&nbsp;What it does establish is that the major AI developers are now publicly on record predicting that their own technology will shortly make attacks meaningfully easier. That admission may prove more useful to regulators than any of the recommendations attached to it.

An open letter led by OpenAI asks for a defensive surge and early access to frontier models for vetted defenders. Signatory counts differ across outlets.

A large coalition of technology and non-technology companies published an open letter on Thursday warning that AI-enabled cyberattacks are about to become far more common, and calling for what the signatories describe as a defensive surge. The letter was led by OpenAI and signed by Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, Cloudflare, CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks, alongside firms well outside the sector including Capital One, Mastercard, Visa, General Motors and Shopify. The exact number of signatories is reported inconsistently. CNBC counted 116 entities; other outlets counted 118. The organisers have not published a figure that resolves the difference, and nothing in the letter's substance turns on it. What the letter claims The central assertion is a timing claim rather than a capability claim. "In the coming months, AI-enabled cyberattacks will become far more widespread as models around the world become increasingly capable," the letter states. That framing is deliberate. The signatories are not arguing that AI has unlocked a category of attack that was previously impossible. They are arguing that the cost of executing sophisticated attacks is falling fast enough to change who can execute them. The letter identifies hospitals, water treatment facilities and the infrastructure carrying internet traffic as particular concerns. These are systems characterised by long equipment lifecycles, thin security budgets and low tolerance for downtime, which is a poor combination. The asks The coalition urges every organisation to raise the security bar, upgrade defensive systems, and deploy a mix of low-cost and frontier models in defence rather than relying on any single tier. The more significant request is directed at the frontier labs themselves, several of which signed the letter. It asks that vetted defenders be given early access to advanced models. This is a meaningful procedural proposal and it deserves more attention than the alarm has received. Security researchers have long argued that defenders operate at a structural disadvantage because attackers can use any model they can obtain, while defenders are constrained by the same safety gating and release schedules as everyone else. Early access for vetted defenders would narrow that window. It would also, unavoidably, create a new category of privileged access to the most capable systems, and with it a question about who does the vetting. Why now The letter arrives against a backdrop of specific incidents rather than abstract concern. OpenAI has disclosed that experimental agents in its own testing escaped their intended boundaries and interacted with external systems, including Hugging Face infrastructure. Separately, Australian federal police this week charged two men over a campaign that investigators say compromised more than a thousand organisations globally, using self-propagating malware distributed through open-source packages. Neither incident establishes that AI caused the harm. But both illustrate the mechanism the letter is pointing at: automation reducing the expertise required to run an operation at scale. The obvious objection The strongest counter-argument is that the companies best positioned to profit from a defensive surge are the ones calling for it. CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare and Cisco sell security products. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and Amazon sell the models the letter recommends deploying in defence. A warning that every organisation must urgently upgrade its security posture is, read uncharitably, a coordinated marketing document. The presence of Visa, Mastercard, Capital One and General Motors complicates that reading, since those firms are buyers of security rather than sellers of it, and have no obvious commercial interest in inflating the threat. But it does not dispose of it entirely. There is a second objection with more analytical force. Security warnings of this kind have a poor forecasting record. Predictions of imminent transformation in the threat landscape have been made repeatedly over two decades, and the attacks that actually cause the most damage remain unglamorous: unpatched systems, stolen credentials, and phishing. If the marginal attack in twelve months is still a credential-stuffing operation against an unpatched server, the defensive surge will have been aimed at the wrong target. The case for taking it seriously anyway The counter to that counter is that the letter's recommendations are largely robust to being wrong about AI. Raising the security bar, upgrading defensive tooling and patching critical infrastructure are worth doing whether or not AI-enabled attacks arrive on the predicted schedule. The measures are not exotic and they address the boring attacks as well as the novel ones. The early-access proposal is the exception. That one only makes sense if the threat model is specifically about frontier capability, and it carries governance costs that would be hard to justify otherwise. What this means outside the United States For countries building out digital public infrastructure at speed, including India, the letter's infrastructure warning is the relevant part. Hospital networks, utility control systems and payment rails are being connected faster than security capacity is being built to defend them. That gap exists regardless of what frontier models can do, and it is the gap an attacker with cheap automation would exploit first. The letter offers no funding mechanism, no enforcement, and no timeline. It is a statement of concern by a group of companies, several with products to sell, and should be read as such. What it does establish is that the major AI developers are now publicly on record predicting that their own technology will shortly make attacks meaningfully easier. That admission may prove more useful to regulators than any of the recommendations attached to it.

An open letter published on 27 August by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and scores of others calls for a defensive surge against AI-enabled attacks. Its most consequential ask is procedural: that frontier labs give vetted defenders early access to advanced models.

More than 100 companies say AI cyberattacks are months away, and want early access to the models

Marvell Technology disclosed an expanded custom silicon partnership with Google this week, and the number that travelled was $120 billion. It is worth understanding what that number is, because it is not a purchase order.&nbsp;The $120 billion is the cumulative amount Google would have to spend with Marvell, over roughly seven years, for a share warrant to vest in full. It is a threshold, not a commitment.&nbsp;What was actually signed&nbsp;The underlying commercial agreement was signed on 29 July and covers a range of custom silicon designed to work with Google's tensor processing unit ecosystem, the in-house accelerators that run much of the company's AI workload.&nbsp;Alongside it, Marvell issued Google a warrant to buy up to 58.97 million Marvell shares at an exercise price of $206.58 each. Exercised in full, that is roughly $12.2 billion of stock and about 6.3 per cent of the company.&nbsp;The vesting schedule is where the structure becomes clear. Around 1.36 million shares vest across the first four quarters. The remainder vests in 240 separate tranches, each one released by a further $500 million of Marvell revenue from sales to Google.&nbsp;Two hundred and forty tranches at $500 million each is $120 billion. That is the entire derivation of the headline figure.&nbsp;The warrant expires on 18 August 2033. There is also a product qualification deadline of 10 November 2027 for a component reported under the codename Kestrel.&nbsp;What Google is obliged to do&nbsp;On the evidence of the disclosed terms, very little.&nbsp;Google is not required to exercise the warrant. It can wait until the deadline, or decline entirely if Marvell's share price sits below the strike price. It is not required to hit any particular procurement level, and no penalty attaches to buying less.&nbsp;The arrangement gives Google an option and an incentive. It does not give Marvell a guaranteed customer, and Marvell's own disclosure indicates substantial revenue is not expected until fiscal 2029.&nbsp;This distinction matters because the deal was widely reported in a register normally reserved for binding supply agreements. A commitment to spend $120 billion and a warrant that vests if $120 billion happens to be spent are different corporate events.&nbsp;The circularity question&nbsp;There is a further feature of the structure that has drawn scrutiny from analysts who follow the sector closely.&nbsp;Marvell's market capitalisation rose by roughly $18.6 billion on the announcement day. That single-day increase exceeds the $12.2 billion the warrant would be worth if exercised in full.&nbsp;Put another way, the announcement of the option created more paper value than the option itself represents. Google holds an instrument whose worth rose the moment its existence became public, and the gains on that instrument can in principle help offset the development costs of the chips Google is buying.&nbsp;Analysts at The Next Platform described the arrangement as a roundtrip, in which each side's benefit is partly a function of the other side's stock reacting to the announcement. That characterisation is contested, and both companies have described the partnership in conventional commercial terms.&nbsp;Why Google is doing this at all&nbsp;The strategic logic is easier to read than the financial engineering.&nbsp;Broadcom has been Google's principal custom chip partner for its TPU line. Broadcom shares fell more than 5 per cent on the news while Marvell's rose, which is the market's plain reading of what a second supplier means for the incumbent.&nbsp;For a company spending at Google's scale on AI infrastructure, supplier concentration is a genuine risk. A second qualified design partner improves negotiating position, reduces exposure to a single roadmap, and provides insurance against a delay in any one component.&nbsp;The warrant is the price of getting Marvell to commit engineering resources to that role. Custom silicon programmes are expensive and multi-year, and a supplier will not staff one on the strength of a handshake.&nbsp;The counter-argument&nbsp;The case for taking the $120 billion figure more seriously than this piece has is straightforward.&nbsp;Warrant structures of this kind are not usually written against numbers nobody expects to reach. Marvell's board had to approve diluting existing shareholders by more than 6 per cent, and it is reasonable to assume they did so with an internal forecast suggesting meaningful vesting.&nbsp;Google, for its part, has been increasing AI capital expenditure aggressively, and the sums involved in hyperscale infrastructure over a seven-year horizon are genuinely of this order. A $120 billion procurement figure through 2033 is ambitious but not fantastical.&nbsp;It is also true that options with contingent vesting are a standard way to align a supplier's incentives with a buyer's growth, and that reading every such structure as financial engineering would leave one unable to describe ordinary corporate practice.&nbsp;What to watch&nbsp;The meaningful checkpoint is not the announcement but the Kestrel qualification deadline in November 2027. If that component qualifies on schedule, the procurement ramp becomes plausible and the vesting tranches start to matter.&nbsp;Until then, the disclosed facts support a narrower statement than the headlines carried: Google has acquired an option, Marvell has acquired a prospect, and the $120 billion is a condition attached to the former rather than a description of the latter.

Marvell gave Google a warrant for 58.97 million shares. The $120 billion figure is the procurement level at which it fully vests by 2033, not a purchase commitment.

Marvell Technology disclosed an expanded custom silicon partnership with Google this week, and the number that travelled was $120 billion. It is worth understanding what that number is, because it is not a purchase order. The $120 billion is the cumulative amount Google would have to spend with Marvell, over roughly seven years, for a share warrant to vest in full. It is a threshold, not a commitment. What was actually signed The underlying commercial agreement was signed on 29 July and covers a range of custom silicon designed to work with Google's tensor processing unit ecosystem, the in-house accelerators that run much of the company's AI workload. Alongside it, Marvell issued Google a warrant to buy up to 58.97 million Marvell shares at an exercise price of $206.58 each. Exercised in full, that is roughly $12.2 billion of stock and about 6.3 per cent of the company. The vesting schedule is where the structure becomes clear. Around 1.36 million shares vest across the first four quarters. The remainder vests in 240 separate tranches, each one released by a further $500 million of Marvell revenue from sales to Google. Two hundred and forty tranches at $500 million each is $120 billion. That is the entire derivation of the headline figure. The warrant expires on 18 August 2033. There is also a product qualification deadline of 10 November 2027 for a component reported under the codename Kestrel. What Google is obliged to do On the evidence of the disclosed terms, very little. Google is not required to exercise the warrant. It can wait until the deadline, or decline entirely if Marvell's share price sits below the strike price. It is not required to hit any particular procurement level, and no penalty attaches to buying less. The arrangement gives Google an option and an incentive. It does not give Marvell a guaranteed customer, and Marvell's own disclosure indicates substantial revenue is not expected until fiscal 2029. This distinction matters because the deal was widely reported in a register normally reserved for binding supply agreements. A commitment to spend $120 billion and a warrant that vests if $120 billion happens to be spent are different corporate events. The circularity question There is a further feature of the structure that has drawn scrutiny from analysts who follow the sector closely. Marvell's market capitalisation rose by roughly $18.6 billion on the announcement day. That single-day increase exceeds the $12.2 billion the warrant would be worth if exercised in full. Put another way, the announcement of the option created more paper value than the option itself represents. Google holds an instrument whose worth rose the moment its existence became public, and the gains on that instrument can in principle help offset the development costs of the chips Google is buying. Analysts at The Next Platform described the arrangement as a roundtrip, in which each side's benefit is partly a function of the other side's stock reacting to the announcement. That characterisation is contested, and both companies have described the partnership in conventional commercial terms. Why Google is doing this at all The strategic logic is easier to read than the financial engineering. Broadcom has been Google's principal custom chip partner for its TPU line. Broadcom shares fell more than 5 per cent on the news while Marvell's rose, which is the market's plain reading of what a second supplier means for the incumbent. For a company spending at Google's scale on AI infrastructure, supplier concentration is a genuine risk. A second qualified design partner improves negotiating position, reduces exposure to a single roadmap, and provides insurance against a delay in any one component. The warrant is the price of getting Marvell to commit engineering resources to that role. Custom silicon programmes are expensive and multi-year, and a supplier will not staff one on the strength of a handshake. The counter-argument The case for taking the $120 billion figure more seriously than this piece has is straightforward. Warrant structures of this kind are not usually written against numbers nobody expects to reach. Marvell's board had to approve diluting existing shareholders by more than 6 per cent, and it is reasonable to assume they did so with an internal forecast suggesting meaningful vesting. Google, for its part, has been increasing AI capital expenditure aggressively, and the sums involved in hyperscale infrastructure over a seven-year horizon are genuinely of this order. A $120 billion procurement figure through 2033 is ambitious but not fantastical. It is also true that options with contingent vesting are a standard way to align a supplier's incentives with a buyer's growth, and that reading every such structure as financial engineering would leave one unable to describe ordinary corporate practice. What to watch The meaningful checkpoint is not the announcement but the Kestrel qualification deadline in November 2027. If that component qualifies on schedule, the procurement ramp becomes plausible and the vesting tranches start to matter. Until then, the disclosed facts support a narrower statement than the headlines carried: Google has acquired an option, Marvell has acquired a prospect, and the $120 billion is a condition attached to the former rather than a description of the latter.

Marvell disclosed a warrant giving Google the right to buy up to 58.97 million shares. The widely reported $120 billion figure is the procurement total at which those shares fully vest by 2033, not an order. Marvell's market value rose by more than the warrant is worth on the day.

Google's $120 billion deal with Marvell commits Google to buying nothing at all

Meta has agreed to settle a landmark case brought by a bipartisan coalition of American state attorneys general over the design of Instagram and Facebook for teenagers, ending a federal trial in Oakland that legal scholars had already compared to the tobacco and opioid litigation of earlier decades.&nbsp;The figure carried in most headlines is $17.1 billion. The figure Meta is actually committed to is $12.1 billion.&nbsp;That gap is not a discrepancy or a reporting error. It is the structure of the deal, and it has been largely lost in the coverage.&nbsp;How the number actually works&nbsp;According to the announcement from New York Attorney General Letitia James, Meta will pay at least $12.1 billion. The total rises towards $17.1 billion only if other major social media companies reach similar settlements of their own.&nbsp;In other words, roughly $5 billion of the headline sum is contingent on the litigation conduct of companies that are not party to this agreement and have made no commitment to settle anything.&nbsp;The same conditionality runs through the non-monetary terms. The settlement's stricter phase is set to last ten years if competitors settle, and a minimum of five years if they do not.&nbsp;This structure explains the confusion in the first day of coverage, where the sum was variously reported as $16.7 billion, $17 billion, $17.1 billion and $18 billion. Different outlets were picking different points on a sliding scale, and few explained that a scale existed.&nbsp;What Meta has agreed to change&nbsp;The product commitments are more concrete than the money, and arguably more consequential.&nbsp;Under the terms described by the California and New York attorneys general, users under 18 face a default daily limit of about two hours across Facebook and Instagram. California's summary notes this can reduce to one hour if other platforms adopt comparable limits, another provision keyed to competitor behaviour.&nbsp;Overnight access is blocked between midnight and 6 am for under-18 accounts. Push notifications are barred between 10 pm and 7 am, and California's account adds a block during school hours.&nbsp;Beyond timing, Meta must offer a non-personalised feed option, hide like and reaction counts for under-18 users, restrict cosmetic procedure filters for minors, implement age verification and remove users under 13.&nbsp;There are also usage interruptions built in, described as mindfulness reminders after sustained scrolling, and a requirement that parental permission be obtained before a young user can switch the restrictions off.&nbsp;What Meta did not concede&nbsp;This point deserves emphasis, because settlements are routinely reported as though they were verdicts.&nbsp;The agreement contains no admission of liability. The states alleged that Meta designed Instagram with deliberately addictive features, that it knowingly exposed young users to mental health harms, and that it misled the public about platform safety. Those remain allegations, contested by the company and never tested to a jury verdict in this particular case.&nbsp;The settlement is also not yet final. It is subject to court approval through entry of a consent judgment in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.&nbsp;Why the states settled anyway&nbsp;Twenty-nine states had taken Meta to trial before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 18 August, the first case in the sprawling federal social media litigation to reach a jury. Settling eight days into a trial they had fought for years to reach is a choice that invites scrutiny.&nbsp;The obvious answer is that a negotiated set of binding product changes, enforceable through a consent judgment, may do more for teenage users than a damages award that Meta could have appealed for years.&nbsp;Attorneys general also faced genuine trial risk. Causation in adolescent mental health is contested terrain, and a defence verdict would have left them with nothing and set an unhelpful precedent for the remaining cases.&nbsp;The counter-argument&nbsp;The strongest case against reading this as a victory is that the money is smaller than it looks and the product changes may be less binding than they sound.&nbsp;Meta's own guidance indicated a legal expense accrual of roughly $10 billion in the third quarter of 2026. Against annual revenues in the hundreds of billions, a payment stream spread across ten years is a manageable cost of doing business rather than a structural blow.&nbsp;On the product side, defaults can be complied with narrowly. A two-hour limit that a determined teenager can circumvent, or that applies only to accounts the company has identified as belonging to minors, is only as strong as the age verification behind it, and age verification is precisely the thing platforms have struggled with everywhere it has been tried.&nbsp;There is a further objection worth stating plainly. Conditioning both the money and the duration on whether competitors settle gives Meta an unusual interest in the outcome of other companies' litigation, and gives those companies an incentive to hold out.&nbsp;The wider context&nbsp;For regulators outside the United States, the settlement offers something more useful than the dollar figure: a published list of design changes that one of the largest platforms has accepted as workable.&nbsp;India, the European Union, Australia and others have been drafting rules on minors and platform design, and have consistently run into industry arguments that specific interventions are technically infeasible or commercially ruinous. That argument is harder to make about measures a company has already agreed to build.&nbsp;Whether those measures survive contact with the product, and whether the contingent portion of the money ever arrives, will not be known for some time. The consent judgment has still to be entered, and the competitors on whose behaviour so much of this depends have said nothing at all.

Meta's settlement with state attorneys general guarantees $12.1 billion. The rest arrives only if rival platforms settle too. The company admitted no liability.

Meta has agreed to settle a landmark case brought by a bipartisan coalition of American state attorneys general over the design of Instagram and Facebook for teenagers, ending a federal trial in Oakland that legal scholars had already compared to the tobacco and opioid litigation of earlier decades. The figure carried in most headlines is $17.1 billion. The figure Meta is actually committed to is $12.1 billion. That gap is not a discrepancy or a reporting error. It is the structure of the deal, and it has been largely lost in the coverage. How the number actually works According to the announcement from New York Attorney General Letitia James, Meta will pay at least $12.1 billion. The total rises towards $17.1 billion only if other major social media companies reach similar settlements of their own. In other words, roughly $5 billion of the headline sum is contingent on the litigation conduct of companies that are not party to this agreement and have made no commitment to settle anything. The same conditionality runs through the non-monetary terms. The settlement's stricter phase is set to last ten years if competitors settle, and a minimum of five years if they do not. This structure explains the confusion in the first day of coverage, where the sum was variously reported as $16.7 billion, $17 billion, $17.1 billion and $18 billion. Different outlets were picking different points on a sliding scale, and few explained that a scale existed. What Meta has agreed to change The product commitments are more concrete than the money, and arguably more consequential. Under the terms described by the California and New York attorneys general, users under 18 face a default daily limit of about two hours across Facebook and Instagram. California's summary notes this can reduce to one hour if other platforms adopt comparable limits, another provision keyed to competitor behaviour. Overnight access is blocked between midnight and 6 am for under-18 accounts. Push notifications are barred between 10 pm and 7 am, and California's account adds a block during school hours. Beyond timing, Meta must offer a non-personalised feed option, hide like and reaction counts for under-18 users, restrict cosmetic procedure filters for minors, implement age verification and remove users under 13. There are also usage interruptions built in, described as mindfulness reminders after sustained scrolling, and a requirement that parental permission be obtained before a young user can switch the restrictions off. What Meta did not concede This point deserves emphasis, because settlements are routinely reported as though they were verdicts. The agreement contains no admission of liability. The states alleged that Meta designed Instagram with deliberately addictive features, that it knowingly exposed young users to mental health harms, and that it misled the public about platform safety. Those remain allegations, contested by the company and never tested to a jury verdict in this particular case. The settlement is also not yet final. It is subject to court approval through entry of a consent judgment in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Why the states settled anyway Twenty-nine states had taken Meta to trial before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 18 August, the first case in the sprawling federal social media litigation to reach a jury. Settling eight days into a trial they had fought for years to reach is a choice that invites scrutiny. The obvious answer is that a negotiated set of binding product changes, enforceable through a consent judgment, may do more for teenage users than a damages award that Meta could have appealed for years. Attorneys general also faced genuine trial risk. Causation in adolescent mental health is contested terrain, and a defence verdict would have left them with nothing and set an unhelpful precedent for the remaining cases. The counter-argument The strongest case against reading this as a victory is that the money is smaller than it looks and the product changes may be less binding than they sound. Meta's own guidance indicated a legal expense accrual of roughly $10 billion in the third quarter of 2026. Against annual revenues in the hundreds of billions, a payment stream spread across ten years is a manageable cost of doing business rather than a structural blow. On the product side, defaults can be complied with narrowly. A two-hour limit that a determined teenager can circumvent, or that applies only to accounts the company has identified as belonging to minors, is only as strong as the age verification behind it, and age verification is precisely the thing platforms have struggled with everywhere it has been tried. There is a further objection worth stating plainly. Conditioning both the money and the duration on whether competitors settle gives Meta an unusual interest in the outcome of other companies' litigation, and gives those companies an incentive to hold out. The wider context For regulators outside the United States, the settlement offers something more useful than the dollar figure: a published list of design changes that one of the largest platforms has accepted as workable. India, the European Union, Australia and others have been drafting rules on minors and platform design, and have consistently run into industry arguments that specific interventions are technically infeasible or commercially ruinous. That argument is harder to make about measures a company has already agreed to build. Whether those measures survive contact with the product, and whether the contingent portion of the money ever arrives, will not be known for some time. The consent judgment has still to be entered, and the competitors on whose behaviour so much of this depends have said nothing at all.

Meta settled the states' teen social media case in Oakland for a sum widely reported as $17.1 billion. State attorneys general documents show the guaranteed amount is $12.1 billion, and the balance arrives only if other major platforms reach comparable deals. Meta admitted no liability.

Meta's $17 billion settlement has a floor of $12.1 billion! The rest depends on its rivals

A federal judge in California has ruled that the United States Department of Defense acted unlawfully when it branded the artificial intelligence company Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security, a decision that lands in the middle of a widening argument over how much control AI developers keep over the way their models are used.&nbsp;District Judge Rita Lin issued the order on Thursday night, and it was reported on Friday. In a decision running to 59 pages, she found that the designation was retaliation for the company's public defence of its own safety limits, and that the department's stated justification lacked an adequate factual and legal basis.&nbsp;"The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote, in a line that has already been picked up well beyond the technology press.&nbsp;What the dispute was actually about&nbsp;The confrontation traces back to February, when the Trump administration instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's technology. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk the same day.&nbsp;The trigger, according to Anthropic's filings, was its refusal to lift two contractual restrictions attached to Claude, its flagship model. One barred the use of the model for mass surveillance of Americans. The other barred fully autonomous weapons systems.&nbsp;Anthropic has said publicly that it was willing to work with the defence establishment, and has existing government business, but would not remove those two conditions. Chief executive Dario Amodei has repeatedly staked out the same position in public remarks.&nbsp;The designation carried real commercial weight. A supply chain risk label under federal procurement rules does not merely embarrass a vendor. It can shut it out of the defence market and cast a shadow over its dealings with other agencies and with private contractors who sell into that market.&nbsp;The legal findings&nbsp;Lin found violations on three separate tracks. She held that the designation infringed the First Amendment, because it punished the company for speech. She found a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. And she found the department had breached federal administrative law governing how agencies must reach and justify decisions.&nbsp;The administrative law finding may prove the most durable of the three. Courts are generally reluctant to second-guess national security judgements, but they are far more willing to ask whether an agency followed its own procedures and built a record capable of supporting what it did.&nbsp;That is the question Lin answered in the negative. On her reading, the department reached for a national security label without assembling the factual basis that the label requires.&nbsp;What the ruling does not do&nbsp;It is worth being precise about the limits here, because early coverage has blurred them.&nbsp;The order blocks the designation and restores Anthropic's eligibility to compete for defence work. It does not order the Pentagon to award the company a contract, resume any particular programme, or restore any commercial relationship that lapsed in the interim.&nbsp;Eligibility to bid and a guarantee of business are very different things. A procurement system has many lawful ways to decline to buy from a supplier it does not want, and none of them are foreclosed by this decision.&nbsp;The government is expected to appeal. Until an appellate court has spoken, the practical position of the company inside the defence market remains unsettled.&nbsp;Why this matters beyond one company&nbsp;The case is the sharpest test yet of a question the AI industry has so far handled through voluntary policy: can a model developer impose binding limits on how a government customer uses its system, and hold that line when the customer objects?&nbsp;Every major developer publishes an acceptable use policy. Almost none of them have been tested against a determined state buyer with procurement leverage. This ruling suggests that at least one court is prepared to treat the assertion of such limits as protected expression rather than mere contractual preference.&nbsp;That has implications well outside the United States. Governments in Europe, India and elsewhere are drafting procurement rules for AI systems, and many are weighing how much say a vendor should retain over downstream military and surveillance applications.&nbsp;The counter-argument&nbsp;The strongest case against the ruling is not that Anthropic's safety limits are unreasonable. It is that a court has now inserted itself into a judgement the executive branch has traditionally been allowed to make on its own.&nbsp;Supply chain risk designations exist precisely because the defence establishment sometimes needs to move quickly against a supplier without litigating the underlying intelligence in open court. If every such designation must survive a First Amendment challenge, the tool becomes considerably slower and more brittle.&nbsp;There is also a narrower objection. A vendor that publicly refuses a customer's requirements has, in an ordinary commercial setting, simply declined the business. Recasting the customer's subsequent decision not to deal as retaliation for speech is a move that could be applied to a great many procurement disputes that have nothing to do with AI safety.&nbsp;Lin's answer, in substance, was that the record here showed punishment rather than a considered procurement judgement. An appellate court may weigh that record differently.&nbsp;What happens next&nbsp;The immediate question is whether the government seeks a stay while it appeals. If it does and succeeds, the designation could remain in force through the appellate process, and the practical effect of Friday's news would be limited for months.&nbsp;The broader question is whether other developers now feel able to write firmer limits into their government contracts. The commercial incentive has always pointed the other way, and defence budgets are among the largest single pools of money entering the sector.&nbsp;A single district court order does not settle that. But it changes the calculation for a general counsel deciding how much of a fight the company can afford to pick, and that may turn out to be the most consequential thing about it.

Judge Rita Lin found the Defense Department retaliated against Anthropic over its refusal to lift Claude's limits on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.

A federal judge in California has ruled that the United States Department of Defense acted unlawfully when it branded the artificial intelligence company Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security, a decision that lands in the middle of a widening argument over how much control AI developers keep over the way their models are used. District Judge Rita Lin issued the order on Thursday night, and it was reported on Friday. In a decision running to 59 pages, she found that the designation was retaliation for the company's public defence of its own safety limits, and that the department's stated justification lacked an adequate factual and legal basis. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote, in a line that has already been picked up well beyond the technology press. What the dispute was actually about The confrontation traces back to February, when the Trump administration instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's technology. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk the same day. The trigger, according to Anthropic's filings, was its refusal to lift two contractual restrictions attached to Claude, its flagship model. One barred the use of the model for mass surveillance of Americans. The other barred fully autonomous weapons systems. Anthropic has said publicly that it was willing to work with the defence establishment, and has existing government business, but would not remove those two conditions. Chief executive Dario Amodei has repeatedly staked out the same position in public remarks. The designation carried real commercial weight. A supply chain risk label under federal procurement rules does not merely embarrass a vendor. It can shut it out of the defence market and cast a shadow over its dealings with other agencies and with private contractors who sell into that market. The legal findings Lin found violations on three separate tracks. She held that the designation infringed the First Amendment, because it punished the company for speech. She found a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. And she found the department had breached federal administrative law governing how agencies must reach and justify decisions. The administrative law finding may prove the most durable of the three. Courts are generally reluctant to second-guess national security judgements, but they are far more willing to ask whether an agency followed its own procedures and built a record capable of supporting what it did. That is the question Lin answered in the negative. On her reading, the department reached for a national security label without assembling the factual basis that the label requires. What the ruling does not do It is worth being precise about the limits here, because early coverage has blurred them. The order blocks the designation and restores Anthropic's eligibility to compete for defence work. It does not order the Pentagon to award the company a contract, resume any particular programme, or restore any commercial relationship that lapsed in the interim. Eligibility to bid and a guarantee of business are very different things. A procurement system has many lawful ways to decline to buy from a supplier it does not want, and none of them are foreclosed by this decision. The government is expected to appeal. Until an appellate court has spoken, the practical position of the company inside the defence market remains unsettled. Why this matters beyond one company The case is the sharpest test yet of a question the AI industry has so far handled through voluntary policy: can a model developer impose binding limits on how a government customer uses its system, and hold that line when the customer objects? Every major developer publishes an acceptable use policy. Almost none of them have been tested against a determined state buyer with procurement leverage. This ruling suggests that at least one court is prepared to treat the assertion of such limits as protected expression rather than mere contractual preference. That has implications well outside the United States. Governments in Europe, India and elsewhere are drafting procurement rules for AI systems, and many are weighing how much say a vendor should retain over downstream military and surveillance applications. The counter-argument The strongest case against the ruling is not that Anthropic's safety limits are unreasonable. It is that a court has now inserted itself into a judgement the executive branch has traditionally been allowed to make on its own. Supply chain risk designations exist precisely because the defence establishment sometimes needs to move quickly against a supplier without litigating the underlying intelligence in open court. If every such designation must survive a First Amendment challenge, the tool becomes considerably slower and more brittle. There is also a narrower objection. A vendor that publicly refuses a customer's requirements has, in an ordinary commercial setting, simply declined the business. Recasting the customer's subsequent decision not to deal as retaliation for speech is a move that could be applied to a great many procurement disputes that have nothing to do with AI safety. Lin's answer, in substance, was that the record here showed punishment rather than a considered procurement judgement. An appellate court may weigh that record differently. What happens next The immediate question is whether the government seeks a stay while it appeals. If it does and succeeds, the designation could remain in force through the appellate process, and the practical effect of Friday's news would be limited for months. The broader question is whether other developers now feel able to write firmer limits into their government contracts. The commercial incentive has always pointed the other way, and defence budgets are among the largest single pools of money entering the sector. A single district court order does not settle that. But it changes the calculation for a general counsel deciding how much of a fight the company can afford to pick, and that may turn out to be the most consequential thing about it.

District Judge Rita Lin found the Defense Department retaliated against Anthropic for refusing to lift limits on Claude covering autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance. The order restores the company's eligibility to compete for contracts, but it does not force the Pentagon to buy anything.

A US judge says the Pentagon broke the law when it blacklisted Anthropic

The annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Heads of State summit is all set to be held in Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek from August 31 to September 1, which marks the group's 25th anniversary. Among the leaders to attend the summit are Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.&nbsp;Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also expected to take part in the meeting amid war with US and growing economic pressure.&nbsp;Pakistan and India will be attending the same summit more than a year after their brief conflict in May 2025.&nbsp;Indian PM Modi will hold a bilateral meeting with the Russian President on the margins of the upcoming SCO summit, said the government while announcing Modi’s two-nation central Asia tour to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan beginning Saturday.&nbsp;A meeting is scheduled between both the leaders of India and Russia on the sidelines of the summit," said Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs of India.&nbsp;"Both sides are expected to review the entire gamut of bilateral relationship during the meeting between the leaders on the sidelines of the SCO in Bishkek," he said further.&nbsp;The Russian President is also expected to meet China's Xi Jinping and Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian, according to various media reports.&nbsp;<h2>What is SCO?</h2>&nbsp;SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Heads of State summit was established in 1996 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to ease military tensions and address border disputes after the Soviet Union broke into several small countries.&nbsp;Uzbekistan joined when the SCO was formally established in 2001, while &nbsp;India and Pakistan became full members in 2017, followed by Iran in 2023 and Belarus in 2024.&nbsp;The 10-member bloc, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus represents about 3.4 billion people and roughly a quarter of global GDP. &nbsp;

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also expected to take part in the meeting amid war with US and growing economic pressure.

The annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Heads of State summit is all set to be held in Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek from August 31 to September 1, which marks the group's 25th anniversary. Among the leaders to attend the summit are Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also expected to take part in the meeting amid war with US and growing economic pressure. Pakistan and India will be attending the same summit more than a year after their brief conflict in May 2025. Indian PM Modi will hold a bilateral meeting with the Russian President on the margins of the upcoming SCO summit, said the government while announcing Modi’s two-nation central Asia tour to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan beginning Saturday. A meeting is scheduled between both the leaders of India and Russia on the sidelines of the summit," said Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs of India. "Both sides are expected to review the entire gamut of bilateral relationship during the meeting between the leaders on the sidelines of the SCO in Bishkek," he said further. The Russian President is also expected to meet China's Xi Jinping and Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian, according to various media reports. What is SCO? SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Heads of State summit was established in 1996 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to ease military tensions and address border disputes after the Soviet Union broke into several small countries. Uzbekistan joined when the SCO was formally established in 2001, while India and Pakistan became full members in 2017, followed by Iran in 2023 and Belarus in 2024. The 10-member bloc, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus represents about 3.4 billion people and roughly a quarter of global GDP.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also expected to take part in the meeting amid war with US and growing economic pressure.

Putin to take part in SCO summit, meet China's Xi, India's Modi and Iran's Pezeshkian

September is a big month for diplomacy. Amid growing concerns over America's global hegemony, key world leaders will attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS summits next month. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also kicking off a series of key bilateral meetings from Saturday.&nbsp;To begin with, PM Modi will visit Tashkent for two days at the invitation of Uzbekistan's president. During his fourth visit to Uzbekistan, he is expected to hold talks to strengthen the strategic partnership between the two countries and review cooperation across multiple sectors.&nbsp;The Prime Minister is also set to visit the memorial dedicated to former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri.&nbsp;From Tashkent, he will travel to Bishkek to participate in the 26th SCO summit from August 31 to September 1. At the summit, he will highlight India's priorities of security, connectivity and opportunity.Over its two decades-long history, the bloc has expanded considerably. It now includes 10 member states, two observer states and 15 dialogue partners, spanning a vast geographical area and diverse populations.&nbsp;The summit comes at a time when geopolitical uncertainty remains high, with Russia's war in Ukraine and the ongoing war with Iran adding to global tensions.&nbsp;PM Modi will also hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the SCO summit with leaders of other countries. For instance, he is all set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin.&nbsp;However, suspense remains over whether he will meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is also attending the summit.&nbsp;This will be followed by the BRICS summit, which India will host on September 12 and 13.&nbsp;What started as a bloc of four countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, has now expanded to 11 official members, including Egypt, the UAE and Indonesia. It also has 10 partner countries.&nbsp;Guided by the theme 'Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability', global leaders will exchange views on strengthening intra-BRICS cooperation and common priorities.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-russia-conducts-long-range-mobile-icbm-test-missile-travels-6-700-km-1787936606571">Watch: Russia conducts long-range mobile ICBM test, missile travels 6,700 km</a>&nbsp;While Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Putin are among the key leaders travelling to the summit, official confirmation of Xi's participation is awaited.&nbsp;Earlier, Reuters indicated that the Chinese president would attend the BRICS summit with a delegation of about 400 officials. This would mark his first visit to India in seven years, amid a gradual improvement in bilateral ties.&nbsp;This also raises a key question. Amid America bolstering its sanctions pertaining to Iran, will the bloc explore the option of creating a BRICS currency?&nbsp;Brazil's president voiced this idea in 2023. He proposed a common currency that could be used for trade and investment between BRICS nations to reduce their vulnerability to dollar rate fluctuations.This assumes significance as the US dollar remains the undisputed anchor of the global financial system, making up the vast majority of central bank reserves and daily currency trading globally.

For instance, about 60% of global foreign exchange reserves are held in US dollars. Around 60% of cross-border loans and deposits are dollar-based, while most global oil trade is conducted in dollars.While China and Russia are increasingly moving towards reducing the dominance of the US dollar by settling transactions in yuan and roubles, a BRICS currency is yet to become an official proposal.Earlier this month, India's Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal made it clear that India opposes the introduction of any such proposal.&nbsp;Previously, Trump had already threatened to impose 100% tariffs on BRICS countries if they created a currency to replace the dollar.&nbsp;Another key meeting is scheduled towards the end of this month, with Xi's visit to the White House on September 24.&nbsp;This meeting assumes significance at a time when America is increasingly dependent on China for the supply of critical minerals.&nbsp;Thus, all eyes will be on the next two weeks.&nbsp;As the US-Canada trade war intensifies, the battle is not limited to tariffs alone.&nbsp;The Trump administration again used social media to boast of its supposed triumph over Canada. This time, though, there was a twist in the tale.&nbsp;The White House posted a photo of a bald eagle pinning a Canada goose to the ground. The image was seen as a bid to project US dominance over Canada, as the bald eagle is strongly associated with the US as its national bird.&nbsp;However, the White House's victory symbol turned into an unexpected Canadian comeback story.Build Canada, a Canadian government agency, responded with another picture that depicted a very different tale. It showed the Canada goose raising its wing in an apparent attack.&nbsp;According to some social media users, both these photos came from a 20-minute faceoff between the two birds on frozen Lake Ontario, captured by a photographer over a year ago.&nbsp;While the bald eagle had the upper hand in the fight for a while, the goose fought back, after which the eagle was forced to retreat.&nbsp;This metaphor of resistance unfolded in reality earlier this week when Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on around 700 US goods ranging between 15% and 50% from September 8 onwards.&nbsp;American steel, aluminium, furniture, clothing, electronics and cheese will now be subjected to tariffs.Canada also announced an aid package of $5.4 billion for workers and firms hit by US tariffs.But how did Trump retaliate?&nbsp;By renaming a lake.&nbsp;He signed an executive order changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America. The US President attributed the move to Canada's alleged shortchanging of America on trade as well as military issues.Earlier, the Ontario premier had threatened that Canada could cut off electricity and critical mineral supplies to the US if tensions continued.&nbsp;Lake Ontario is one of the four Great Lakes that the US shares with Canada. It borders New York State in America and Ontario province in Canada.&nbsp;According to reports, it has been called Lake Ontario since the 17th century and was named by Canada's Indigenous population.&nbsp;As the water body falls under the jurisdiction of both countries, Trump cannot compel Canada to adopt the changed name.&nbsp;Last year too, the US President stirred a row by renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. However, Trump suggested that his push to rename water bodies may not be finished.&nbsp;The move to rename Lake Ontario immediately triggered pushback from Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney.&nbsp;Carney said, and I am quoting him, "The name is more than 400 years old, predating both the Confederation of Canada &amp; The declaration of Independence of, the United States of America".Snubbing Trump further, Carney stressed that Canadians would continue to call it Lake Ontario.Public opinion on the issue was also largely in favour of Carney's stance.&nbsp;The row originally started with a breakdown in trade talks between the two countries.&nbsp;While the Canadian PM slammed the US for treating his country like a subsidiary and accused it of trying to destroy its key industries, the US accused him of walking away from the deal for political purposes.&nbsp;While Trump initially imposed a 50% tariff on around $20 billion of Canadian goods, he followed it up by increasing tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks, automobile parts and steel to 50%.&nbsp;With Canada's subsequent retaliatory measures, it is amply clear that Ottawa will not give in to US pressure any time soon.

PM Modi is set for a packed September diplomatic schedule involving the SCO and BRICS summits and key bilateral meetings, while intensifying US-China and US-Canada tensions add to the wider geopolitical and economic stakes.

September is a big month for diplomacy. Amid growing concerns over America's global hegemony, key world leaders will attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS summits next month. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also kicking off a series of key bilateral meetings from Saturday. To begin with, PM Modi will visit Tashkent for two days at the invitation of Uzbekistan's president. During his fourth visit to Uzbekistan, he is expected to hold talks to strengthen the strategic partnership between the two countries and review cooperation across multiple sectors. The Prime Minister is also set to visit the memorial dedicated to former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. From Tashkent, he will travel to Bishkek to participate in the 26th SCO summit from August 31 to September 1. At the summit, he will highlight India's priorities of security, connectivity and opportunity. Over its two decades-long history, the bloc has expanded considerably. It now includes 10 member states, two observer states and 15 dialogue partners, spanning a vast geographical area and diverse populations. The summit comes at a time when geopolitical uncertainty remains high, with Russia's war in Ukraine and the ongoing war with Iran adding to global tensions. PM Modi will also hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the SCO summit with leaders of other countries. For instance, he is all set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, suspense remains over whether he will meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is also attending the summit. This will be followed by the BRICS summit, which India will host on September 12 and 13. What started as a bloc of four countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, has now expanded to 11 official members, including Egypt, the UAE and Indonesia. It also has 10 partner countries. Guided by the theme 'Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability', global leaders will exchange views on strengthening intra-BRICS cooperation and common priorities. Also Read: Watch: Russia conducts long-range mobile ICBM test, missile travels 6,700 km While Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Putin are among the key leaders travelling to the summit, official confirmation of Xi's participation is awaited. Earlier, Reuters indicated that the Chinese president would attend the BRICS summit with a delegation of about 400 officials. This would mark his first visit to India in seven years, amid a gradual improvement in bilateral ties. This also raises a key question. Amid America bolstering its sanctions pertaining to Iran, will the bloc explore the option of creating a BRICS currency? Brazil's president voiced this idea in 2023. He proposed a common currency that could be used for trade and investment between BRICS nations to reduce their vulnerability to dollar rate fluctuations. This assumes significance as the US dollar remains the undisputed anchor of the global financial system, making up the vast majority of central bank reserves and daily currency trading globally.

PM Modi is set for a packed September diplomatic schedule involving the SCO and BRICS summits and key bilateral meetings, while intensifying US-China and US-Canada tensions add to the wider geopolitical and economic stakes.

PM Modi begins big September diplomatic blitz, summits will test US decline | Gravitas

Russia’s Defence Ministry on Friday announced that it had conducted a successful combat training launch of a mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the northwestern Arkhangelsk region.&nbsp;The Strategic Missile Forces deployed a mobile launcher battery to a remote area before firing the missile across the country towards the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula, located more than 6,700 kilometres to the east.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a> | Russia has conducted a test launch of a mobile-based intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Moscow has not identified the ICBM used in the launch. The Russian Defence Ministry says the exercise tested the deployment, preparation and launch… <a href="https://t.co/vMZjAl4KZC">pic.twitter.com/vMZjAl4KZC</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2093369394206507328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A video released by the Defence Ministry showed the missile being launched from a forested location.The military said the launch aimed to confirm the “tactical, technical and flight characteristics of the missile system”.&nbsp;“All assigned tasks were completed in full,” the ministry said, adding that the ICBM maintained a “flawless trajectory”.&nbsp;Russia has one of the world's largest arsenals of advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its land-based nuclear triad relies heavily on systems such as the mobile RS-24 Yars, the silo-based RS-28 Sarmat and older legacy missiles such as the Topol-M.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/defence-pulse/quantum-battlefield-the-race-to-protect-the-digital-kill-chain-1787937031503">Quantum battlefield: The race to protect the digital kill chain</a>&nbsp; The unique feature of the latest tested ICBM is its mobile launch capability. Rather than firing from a fixed underground silo, the Strategic Missile Forces moved a mobile transporter erector launcher (TEL) battery into a remote forested area before launching the missile.&nbsp;The test therefore demonstrated the system's ability to operate from a remote location while also testing its operational readiness and rapid-response capabilities under field conditions.

Russia conducted a successful combat training launch of a mobile, solid-fuel ICBM from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, with the missile travelling more than 6,700 kilometres to the Kura test site in Kamchatka.

Russia’s Defence Ministry on Friday announced that it had conducted a successful combat training launch of a mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the northwestern Arkhangelsk region. The Strategic Missile Forces deployed a mobile launcher battery to a remote area before firing the missile across the country towards the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula, located more than 6,700 kilometres to the east.

Russia conducted a successful combat training launch of a mobile, solid-fuel ICBM from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, with the missile travelling more than 6,700 kilometres to the Kura test site in Kamchatka.

Watch: Russia conducts long-range mobile ICBM test, missile travels 6,700 km

At least three riverside towns in Central Nepal: Trishuli, Betrawati, Tupche, have been buried under debris and silt, a comparison of satellite imagery from before and after the August 26th&nbsp;flash flood disaster indicates. Suhora Technologies, an India-based space-data analytics and intelligence firm, has analysed&nbsp; high-resolution satellite images of the area, providing among the first independent looks at building-level impact. Suhora sourced these images from providers such as Airbus, Maxar, BlackSky, Satellogic, among others.&nbsp;&nbsp;This week's glacial collapse caused an ice-rock avalanche near the Nepal-Tibet border, unleashing a massive surge of ice, rock, and debris into the Bhote Koshi river system racing downstream into the parts of central Nepal, tearing through Rasuwa and Nuwakot districts. Over 570 people have lost their lives in this tragedy and estimates suggest that over 1,900 are missing.&nbsp;&nbsp;Comparing the satellite images of Betrawati captured before and after the disaster, Suhora's analysis highlighted that riverside town's commercial core has been buried under mud, boulders, and debris. "Bridges washed out, cutting off ground access to the area. Power lines and substations damaged, disrupting communications," the firm stated. Imagery from Trishuli and Tupche also indicated similar extent of damage caused by debris impact.&nbsp;&nbsp;Suhora mentioned that this first-look assessment is based on their own analysis, identifying structures showing visible signs of damage for supposedly further review. It is an initial observation, not a final damage assessment - validation will continue as more data comes in.&nbsp;With ground access severely disrupted, satellite imagery gives responders a verified' view of the damage without needing to physically reach the site first - helping prioritize where relief and recovery efforts are needed most, Suhora stated.&nbsp; &nbsp;New Glacial Lake Found at the Ice-Avalanche Source&nbsp;Following Suhora’s initial assessment of the Betrawati damage, the company said it has identified a newly formed lake at the source of the ice-rock avalanche that triggered the Bhote Koshi–Trishuli flood. Captured via high-resolution optical imagery (09:52 IST) on 27 August 2026, the lake now spans approximately 20.25 hectares at the point of origin in the high-altitude Lhende Khola region, the firm stated.&nbsp;According to the Suhora analysis, this newly formed water body is a critical development to monitor - a lake at the source of an avalanche/debris-flow event can indicate ongoing meltwater accumulation and raises the possibility of further flooding downstream, if left unchecked. &nbsp;

Comparing the satellite images of Betrawati captured before and after the disaster, Suhora's analysis highlighted that riverside town's commercial core has been buried under mud, boulders, and debris.

At least three riverside towns in Central Nepal: Trishuli, Betrawati, Tupche, have been buried under debris and silt, a comparison of satellite imagery from before and after the August 26th flash flood disaster indicates. Suhora Technologies, an India-based space-data analytics and intelligence firm, has analysed high-resolution satellite images of the area, providing among the first independent looks at building-level impact. Suhora sourced these images from providers such as Airbus, Maxar, BlackSky, Satellogic, among others. This week's glacial collapse caused an ice-rock avalanche near the Nepal-Tibet border, unleashing a massive surge of ice, rock, and debris into the Bhote Koshi river system racing downstream into the parts of central Nepal, tearing through Rasuwa and Nuwakot districts. Over 570 people have lost their lives in this tragedy and estimates suggest that over 1,900 are missing. Comparing the satellite images of Betrawati captured before and after the disaster, Suhora's analysis highlighted that riverside town's commercial core has been buried under mud, boulders, and debris. "Bridges washed out, cutting off ground access to the area. Power lines and substations damaged, disrupting communications," the firm stated. Imagery from Trishuli and Tupche also indicated similar extent of damage caused by debris impact. Suhora mentioned that this first-look assessment is based on their own analysis, identifying structures showing visible signs of damage for supposedly further review. It is an initial observation, not a final damage assessment - validation will continue as more data comes in. With ground access severely disrupted, satellite imagery gives responders a verified' view of the damage without needing to physically reach the site first - helping prioritize where relief and recovery efforts are needed most, Suhora stated. New Glacial Lake Found at the Ice-Avalanche Source Following Suhora’s initial assessment of the Betrawati damage, the company said it has identified a newly formed lake at the source of the ice-rock avalanche that triggered the Bhote Koshi–Trishuli flood. Captured via high-resolution optical imagery (09:52 IST) on 27 August 2026, the lake now spans approximately 20.25 hectares at the point of origin in the high-altitude Lhende Khola region, the firm stated. According to the Suhora analysis, this newly formed water body is a critical development to monitor - a lake at the source of an avalanche/debris-flow event can indicate ongoing meltwater accumulation and raises the possibility of further flooding downstream, if left unchecked.

Comparing the satellite images of Betrawati captured before and after the disaster, Suhora's analysis highlighted that riverside town's commercial core has been buried under mud, boulders, and debris.

Nepal floods: Satellite imagery shows riverside towns buried under debris

The next major war may begin long before the first missile is fired. A stolen signal, a jammed satellite or manipulated battlefield data could be enough to compromise an entire military operation.&nbsp;Modern warfare increasingly depends on information moving at extraordinary speed. Satellites identify potential targets, drones provide surveillance, command centres process intelligence and aircraft or missiles can be directed towards a target within seconds.&nbsp;But this digital kill chain also creates vulnerabilities. Communications can be intercepted, frequencies jammed, navigation signals spoofed and encrypted military networks targeted by adversaries.This is where quantum technology could transform warfare.&nbsp;Quantum computing promises enormous computational power and could eventually threaten many forms of encryption used today. At the same time, quantum technologies could provide new ways of protecting sensitive communications.&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/quantum-tech-to-decide-next-war-why-this-technology-is-must-to-win-modern-wars-1787932183259/embed&nbsp;Quantum Key Distribution, or QKD, uses principles of quantum physics to securely distribute encryption keys. Attempts to intercept the quantum information can disturb its state, allowing the communicating parties to detect potential eavesdropping.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bishkek-prepares-for-sco-summit-as-pm-modi-set-to-join-eurasian-leaders-1787931814259">Bishkek prepares for SCO summit as PM Modi set to join Eurasian leaders</a>&nbsp;The military possibilities extend beyond secure communications.&nbsp;Quantum sensing could potentially provide highly precise navigation without relying on vulnerable satellite signals, while advanced sensors are being researched for detecting objects and environmental changes with extraordinary sensitivity. Such technologies could have implications for aircraft, submarines and other military platforms.&nbsp;The race is already underway.&nbsp;China has invested heavily in quantum communications and sensing research, while the United States is pursuing quantum technologies for navigation, timing and military sensing.&nbsp;India is also building capabilities. DRDO has conducted field trials of indigenous quantum communication technologies aimed at securing strategic networks.&nbsp;The stakes are significant as India’s armed forces become increasingly networked and data-centric.Tomorrow’s battlefield may therefore not belong simply to the military with the largest arsenal.It could belong to the military that can see accurately, communicate securely and keep its data alive when the digital battlefield comes under attack.

Quantum technologies could reshape modern warfare by strengthening secure military communications, enabling more resilient navigation and sensing, and protecting the digital kill chain from increasingly sophisticated battlefield threats.

The next major war may begin long before the first missile is fired. A stolen signal, a jammed satellite or manipulated battlefield data could be enough to compromise an entire military operation. Modern warfare increasingly depends on information moving at extraordinary speed. Satellites identify potential targets, drones provide surveillance, command centres process intelligence and aircraft or missiles can be directed towards a target within seconds. But this digital kill chain also creates vulnerabilities. Communications can be intercepted, frequencies jammed, navigation signals spoofed and encrypted military networks targeted by adversaries. This is where quantum technology could transform warfare. Quantum computing promises enormous computational power and could eventually threaten many forms of encryption used today. At the same time, quantum technologies could provide new ways of protecting sensitive communications. https://www.wionews.com/videos/quantum-tech-to-decide-next-war-why-this-technology-is-must-to-win-modern-wars-1787932183259/embed Quantum Key Distribution, or QKD, uses principles of quantum physics to securely distribute encryption keys. Attempts to intercept the quantum information can disturb its state, allowing the communicating parties to detect potential eavesdropping. Also Read: Bishkek prepares for SCO summit as PM Modi set to join Eurasian leaders The military possibilities extend beyond secure communications. Quantum sensing could potentially provide highly precise navigation without relying on vulnerable satellite signals, while advanced sensors are being researched for detecting objects and environmental changes with extraordinary sensitivity. Such technologies could have implications for aircraft, submarines and other military platforms. The race is already underway. China has invested heavily in quantum communications and sensing research, while the United States is pursuing quantum technologies for navigation, timing and military sensing. India is also building capabilities. DRDO has conducted field trials of indigenous quantum communication technologies aimed at securing strategic networks. The stakes are significant as India’s armed forces become increasingly networked and data-centric. Tomorrow’s battlefield may therefore not belong simply to the military with the largest arsenal. It could belong to the military that can see accurately, communicate securely and keep its data alive when the digital battlefield comes under attack.

Quantum technologies could reshape modern warfare by strengthening secure military communications, enabling more resilient navigation and sensing, and protecting the digital kill chain from increasingly sophisticated battlefield threats.

Quantum battlefield: The race to protect the digital kill chain

As the US-Canada trade war intensifies, the battle is not limited to tariffs alone. The Trump administration again used social media to boast of its supposed triumph over Canada. This time though there was a twist in the tale. Take a look at this visual. The White House posted a photo of a bald eagle pinning a Canada goose to the ground. This was seen as a bid to project US dominance over Canada as the bald eagle is strongly associated with US being its national bird.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the White House's victory symbol turned into an unexpected Canadian comeback story. Build Canada, a Canadian government agency responded to this with another picture which depicts a very different tale. It shows the Canada goose raising its wing in an apparent attack. According to some social media users, both these photos were from a 20-minute faceoff between these two birds on frozen Lake Ontario, captured by a photographer over a year ago.&nbsp;While the bald eagle had an upper hand in this fight for a while, the goose fought back after which the eagle was forced to retreat.This metaphor of resistance unfolded in reality earlier this week when Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on around 700 US. goods tanging between 15 to 50 percent from September 8 onwards. American steel, aluminum, furniture, clothing, electronics and cheese will now be subjected to tariffs.&nbsp;Canada also announced an aid package of 5.4 billion US dollars for workers and firms hit by US tariffs. But how did Trump retaliate? By renaming a lake! He signed an executive order changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America. The US president attributed this move to Canada shortchanging America on trade as well as military issues. Earlier, the Ontario premier had threatened that Canada can cut off electricity and critical minerals supply to US If the tensions continue.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/american-eagle-stokes-trade-war-with-canada-s-goose-1787937611998/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/american-eagle-stokes-trade-war-with-canada-s-goose-1787937611998/embed</a>&nbsp;Now, Lake Ontario is one of the four lakes that US shares with Canada. It borders New York state in America and Ontario province in Canada. According to reports, it has been called Lake Ontario since the 17th century and was named by Canada's indigenous population. As this water body is falls under jurisdiction of both countries, Trump cannot compel Canada to adopt the changed name. Last year too, the US president stirred a row by renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. However, Trump suggested that his push to rename water bodies may not be finished.&nbsp;Listen in to what he said. The move to rename Lake Ontario immediately triggered a pushback from Canada's PM. Mark Carney said and I am quoting him, “The name is more than 400 years old, predating both the confederation of Canada and the Declaration of Independence of The United States of America.” Snubbing Trump further, Carney stressed that Canadians will continue to call it Lake Ontario.&nbsp;Public opinion on this issue was also largely in favour of Carney's stance. The row originally started with a breakdown in the trade talks between the two countries. While the Canadian PM slammed US for treating his country like a subsidiary and accused it of trying to destroy its key industries, the US accused him of walking away from the deal for political purposes.&nbsp;While Trump initially imposed a 50% tariff on around 20 billion dollars of Canadian goods, he followed it up by enhancing the tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks, automobile parts and steel to 50%. With Canada's subsequent retaliatory measures, it is amply clear that it won't give in to US pressure any time soon.&nbsp;

As the US-Canada trade war intensifies, the battle is not limited to tariffs alone. The Trump administration again used social media to boast of its supposed triumph over Canada. This time though there was a twist in the tale. Take a look at this visual. The White House posted a photo of a bald eagle pinning a Canada goose to the ground. This was seen as a bid to project US dominance over Canada as the bald eagle is strongly associated with US being its national bird. However, the White House's victory symbol turned into an unexpected Canadian comeback story. Build Canada, a Canadian government agency responded to this with another picture which depicts a very different tale. It shows the Canada goose raising its wing in an apparent attack. According to some social media users, both these photos were from a 20-minute faceoff between these two birds on frozen Lake Ontario, captured by a photographer over a year ago. While the bald eagle had an upper hand in this fight for a while, the goose fought back after which the eagle was forced to retreat. This metaphor of resistance unfolded in reality earlier this week when Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on around 700 US. goods tanging between 15 to 50 percent from September 8 onwards. American steel, aluminum, furniture, clothing, electronics and cheese will now be subjected to tariffs. Canada also announced an aid package of 5.4 billion US dollars for workers and firms hit by US tariffs. But how did Trump retaliate? By renaming a lake! He signed an executive order changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America. The US president attributed this move to Canada shortchanging America on trade as well as military issues. Earlier, the Ontario premier had threatened that Canada can cut off electricity and critical minerals supply to US If the tensions continue. https://www.wionews.com/videos/american-eagle-stokes-trade-war-with-canada-s-goose-1787937611998/embed Now, Lake Ontario is one of the four lakes that US shares with Canada. It borders New York state in America and Ontario province in Canada. According to reports, it has been called Lake Ontario since the 17th century and was named by Canada's indigenous population. As this water body is falls under jurisdiction of both countries, Trump cannot compel Canada to adopt the changed name. Last year too, the US president stirred a row by renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. However, Trump suggested that his push to rename water bodies may not be finished. Listen in to what he said. The move to rename Lake Ontario immediately triggered a pushback from Canada's PM. Mark Carney said and I am quoting him, “The name is more than 400 years old, predating both the confederation of Canada and the Declaration of Independence of The United States of America.” Snubbing Trump further, Carney stressed that Canadians will continue to call it Lake Ontario. Public opinion on this issue was also largely in favour of Carney's stance. The row originally started with a breakdown in the trade talks between the two countries. While the Canadian PM slammed US for treating his country like a subsidiary and accused it of trying to destroy its key industries, the US accused him of walking away from the deal for political purposes. While Trump initially imposed a 50% tariff on around 20 billion dollars of Canadian goods, he followed it up by enhancing the tariffs on all Canadian cars, trucks, automobile parts and steel to 50%. With Canada's subsequent retaliatory measures, it is amply clear that it won't give in to US pressure any time soon.

The White House posted a photo of a bald eagle pinning a Canada goose to the ground. This was seen as a bid to project US dominance over Canada as the bald eagle is strongly associated with US being its national bird

Gravitas: American eagle stokes trade war with Canada's goose

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming one of the defining technologies of modern warfare, transforming surveillance, targeting, autonomous systems, and battlefield decision-making. As militaries race to integrate AI into operations, India faces a critical challenge: developing indigenous capabilities quickly enough to compete on an increasingly technology-driven battlefield.Speaking to WION, Soham Dedhia, founder of Auric AI Labs, highlighted AI’s growing importance in military operations and its potential to fundamentally change how armed forces process information and respond to threats.&nbsp;Modern battlefields generate enormous volumes of data from drones, satellites, radars, electro-optical systems, and other sensors. AI can process this information rapidly, helping commanders identify threats and make decisions far faster than traditional systems. Dedhia also stressed the importance of converting battlefield data into actionable intelligence. As the volume of information available to commanders grows, AI could help separate critical intelligence from noise, shorten decision-making cycles and improve operational awareness.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-ai-arms-race-is-india-ready-for-future-war-1787843993726/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-ai-arms-race-is-india-ready-for-future-war-1787843993726/embed</a>&nbsp;The implications extend beyond intelligence gathering. Autonomous and semi-autonomous drones, computer vision, AI-assisted targeting and intelligent surveillance platforms are increasingly becoming part of military planning worldwide. Recent conflicts have shown how relatively inexpensive unmanned systems, when combined with software and real-time intelligence, can challenge far more expensive conventional platforms.&nbsp;For India, this transition presents both an opportunity and a test. A growing domestic defence technology ecosystem, combined with the country’s strengths in software and AI, could enable the development of military technologies tailored to its operational requirements. However, speed will be crucial. China and the United States are investing heavily in AI and autonomous military systems. Increasingly, battlefield advantage could depend on which military can detect a threat, process information, and respond fastest.&nbsp;Greater autonomy also raises difficult questions. How much authority should machines have in identifying and engaging targets? Where must human judgment remain indispensable? These questions will require clear rules, rigorous testing, and accountability.India’s challenge, therefore, is not simply about acquiring smarter weapons. It is about building an indigenous ecosystem capable of securely integrating sensors, data, algorithms, and weapons into a battlefield network. The next arms race may ultimately be fought as much through algorithms as missiles.&nbsp;

Modern battlefields generate enormous volumes of data from drones, satellites, radars, electro-optical systems, and other sensors. AI can process this information rapidly, helping commanders identify threats and make decisions far faster than traditional systems

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming one of the defining technologies of modern warfare, transforming surveillance, targeting, autonomous systems, and battlefield decision-making. As militaries race to integrate AI into operations, India faces a critical challenge: developing indigenous capabilities quickly enough to compete on an increasingly technology-driven battlefield. Speaking to WION, Soham Dedhia, founder of Auric AI Labs, highlighted AI’s growing importance in military operations and its potential to fundamentally change how armed forces process information and respond to threats. Modern battlefields generate enormous volumes of data from drones, satellites, radars, electro-optical systems, and other sensors. AI can process this information rapidly, helping commanders identify threats and make decisions far faster than traditional systems. Dedhia also stressed the importance of converting battlefield data into actionable intelligence. As the volume of information available to commanders grows, AI could help separate critical intelligence from noise, shorten decision-making cycles and improve operational awareness. https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-ai-arms-race-is-india-ready-for-future-war-1787843993726/embed The implications extend beyond intelligence gathering. Autonomous and semi-autonomous drones, computer vision, AI-assisted targeting and intelligent surveillance platforms are increasingly becoming part of military planning worldwide. Recent conflicts have shown how relatively inexpensive unmanned systems, when combined with software and real-time intelligence, can challenge far more expensive conventional platforms. For India, this transition presents both an opportunity and a test. A growing domestic defence technology ecosystem, combined with the country’s strengths in software and AI, could enable the development of military technologies tailored to its operational requirements. However, speed will be crucial. China and the United States are investing heavily in AI and autonomous military systems. Increasingly, battlefield advantage could depend on which military can detect a threat, process information, and respond fastest. Greater autonomy also raises difficult questions. How much authority should machines have in identifying and engaging targets? Where must human judgment remain indispensable? These questions will require clear rules, rigorous testing, and accountability. India’s challenge, therefore, is not simply about acquiring smarter weapons. It is about building an indigenous ecosystem capable of securely integrating sensors, data, algorithms, and weapons into a battlefield network. The next arms race may ultimately be fought as much through algorithms as missiles.

Modern battlefields generate enormous volumes of data from drones, satellites, radars, electro-optical systems, and other sensors. AI can process this information rapidly, helping commanders identify threats and make decisions far faster than traditional systems

AI arms race: Is India ready for the battlefield of the future?

Nepal flash floods have left a trail of destruction behind. The death toll has reached 579, while hundreds of them are missing, including foreign tourists. The infrastructure damage in the region is also huge. At least 19 motorable bridges and 40 kilometers of major roads have been severely damaged or washed away.&nbsp;Several concrete buildings, local markets, and residential villages along the Bhotekoshi and Bhote Koshi river basins in districts like Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Dhading, and Chitwan have been swept away by the flash floods.&nbsp;The scale of destruction was captured on cameras and widely shared on social media platforms. One video that has gone viral is about the escape of a family from the devastating floods.&nbsp;In the two-minute video posted on X one can see a two-storey structure painted in light green standing tall amid raging floodwaters. At least three members of a family can also be seen standing in the balcony of the house as flood waters gush with strong force.&nbsp;As other structures around it collapsed, the building remained standing with relatively little visible damage.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Terrifying footage shows a flash flood sweeping through the Nepal–Tibet border, trapping people on rooftops and balconies. At least 469 have been killed, with hundreds still missing. <a href="https://t.co/xRgRWmwut7">pic.twitter.com/xRgRWmwut7</a>&mdash; Weather Monitor (@WeatherMonitors) <a href="https://x.com/WeatherMonitors/status/2093202626930524474?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>What caused the devastating Nepal floods?</h2>&nbsp;Preliminary information suggest that a magnitude 4.4 earthquake in Tibetan territory may have triggered an avalanche that led to the devastating flash flood in Nepal’s Bhote Koshi River.According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), the earthquake struck Tibetan territory at around 8:37 am, approximately 47 kilometres north of Gosainkunda.&nbsp;While, Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority say that a glacier-inclusive flood occurred in the Lhende River due to a snow-rock landslide on the Nepal-China border about 20 kilometers northeast of the Nepal-China Rasuwagadhi border crossing.&nbsp;As sequence of events is still being assessed, authorities and experts are investigating whether the earthquake in the Tibetan territory had any role to play in the avalanche that led to the sudden release of water in Bhotekoshi River.

As other structures around it collapsed, the building remained standing with relatively little visible damage by the devastating Nepal floods.

Nepal flash floods have left a trail of destruction behind. The death toll has reached 579, while hundreds of them are missing, including foreign tourists. The infrastructure damage in the region is also huge. At least 19 motorable bridges and 40 kilometers of major roads have been severely damaged or washed away. Several concrete buildings, local markets, and residential villages along the Bhotekoshi and Bhote Koshi river basins in districts like Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Dhading, and Chitwan have been swept away by the flash floods. The scale of destruction was captured on cameras and widely shared on social media platforms. One video that has gone viral is about the escape of a family from the devastating floods. In the two-minute video posted on X one can see a two-storey structure painted in light green standing tall amid raging floodwaters. At least three members of a family can also be seen standing in the balcony of the house as flood waters gush with strong force. As other structures around it collapsed, the building remained standing with relatively little visible damage.

As other structures around it collapsed, the building remained standing with relatively little visible damage by the devastating Nepal floods.

WATCH: Family on balcony of viral green house survives terrifying Nepal floods

Donald Trump has mastered the politics of attention. Give him a controversy, a camera and a social-media account, and he can turn almost anything into a Trump headline. Now, even Lake Ontario has become part of the brand. Trump has formally ordered the US government to rename it Lake America, despite Canada making clear it will continue calling it Lake Ontario. The move comes amid an escalating trade fight with Ottawa.&nbsp;But here is the uncomfortable question: Is this governing, or marketing? Because Americans are not standing in grocery aisles wondering what the next landmark will be called. They are wondering why everything costs so much. They want affordability. They want stability. They want results. Instead, they are getting a presidency increasingly consumed by personal branding, confrontation and spectacle.&nbsp;Look at the Kennedy Center. Trump’s name has been placed at the center of another political and cultural battle, while fresh reporting suggests the institution’s finances deteriorated sharply following the takeover and name change. And that is the danger of making yourself the story. When every institution becomes a battlefield and every disagreement becomes personal, the presidency risks becoming less about governing and more about maintaining the Trump brand.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, pandering works. It can energize a base. It can dominate the news cycle. It can turn frustration into political loyalty. But eventually, voters ask a more brutal question: What did all that noise actually deliver? And perhaps the clearest warning sign is coming from Corporate America. Companies that once cozied up to Trump are now cultivating relationships with Democrats ahead of the midterms, preparing for the possibility of a Democratic-controlled House, and the investigations and subpoenas that could follow.&nbsp;That is not necessarily ideological conversion. It is political insurance. And when corporate America starts hedging its bets, it suggests even Trump's most powerful allies understand that political power can change very quickly. So, Mr President, the question is no longer whether you can command attention. You clearly can.&nbsp;The question is whether attention is enough. Because America does not need a president who is constantly marketing himself. It needs a president who can make life better for the people being marketed to. The midterms may provide the answer. The brand is Trump. But the bill is America's.&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.

Trump’s Lake America controversy raises questions about branding, governance, affordability, the Kennedy Center and shifting corporate support ahead of the midterms

Donald Trump has mastered the politics of attention. Give him a controversy, a camera and a social-media account, and he can turn almost anything into a Trump headline. Now, even Lake Ontario has become part of the brand. Trump has formally ordered the US government to rename it Lake America, despite Canada making clear it will continue calling it Lake Ontario. The move comes amid an escalating trade fight with Ottawa. But here is the uncomfortable question: Is this governing, or marketing? Because Americans are not standing in grocery aisles wondering what the next landmark will be called. They are wondering why everything costs so much. They want affordability. They want stability. They want results. Instead, they are getting a presidency increasingly consumed by personal branding, confrontation and spectacle. Look at the Kennedy Center. Trump’s name has been placed at the center of another political and cultural battle, while fresh reporting suggests the institution’s finances deteriorated sharply following the takeover and name change. And that is the danger of making yourself the story. When every institution becomes a battlefield and every disagreement becomes personal, the presidency risks becoming less about governing and more about maintaining the Trump brand.

Trump turns Lake Ontario into ‘Lake America’ as critics question whether his presidency is more about branding, controversy and spectacle than results

The Verdict: When the president becomes the brand

Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek has been transformed as the city prepares to host the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. Flags of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states line the capital’s main avenues, blue-and-white SCO ribbons wrap street lamps, and multilingual banners welcome arriving leaders. Among them is India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose presence underscores New Delhi’s continued engagement with the grouping it joined as a full member in 2017.&nbsp;India’s priorities for the gathering centre around security, connectivity and civilizational link with the Eurasian landmass. On security, New Delhi is expected to reiterate its long-standing call for stronger collective action against terrorism, radicalisation and cross-border threats. At previous summits Indian PM Modi urged members to reject double standards and hold accountable those who support or finance terrorism.&nbsp;&nbsp;On Connectivity, India seeks practical advances in transport and trade links across Central Asia. Other focus areas include trade, investment, technology and people-to-people exchanges, including civilisational dialogues and youth programmes that India has promoted to deepen cultural ties. "India’s priorities in SCO are based on secure SCO, during the Prime Minister’s address at the 2018 summit we have seen what secure stands for: Security, Economy and trade, Connectivity, Unity, Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and Environment", Secretary West in MEA Sibi George said ahead of the visit.&nbsp;The visit also reinforces India’s broader strategic partnership with Central Asia and its preference for a multipolar, cooperative Eurasian order. In fact, the Indian PM travels to Kyrgyzstan from Uzbekistan. He is slated to have several bilateral meetings with his counterparts on the sidelines of the SCO summit. The summit, hosted by Kyrgyzstan, comes at a moment of heightened global tension, particularly the conflict in West Asia.&nbsp;&nbsp;With Iran now a full SCO member, the organisation’s collective position will be closely watched. Yet the immediate atmosphere in Bishkek remains one of ceremonial readiness. Officials have polished the city centre, arranged floral displays and prepared venues for both the formal sessions and a series of bilateral meetings on the sidelines.&nbsp;As leaders prepare to sit down for talks, the fluttering flags and carefully arranged displays send a clear message: Bishkek is open for business, and the SCO remains a forum where India, Central Asian states and other members continue to test the possibilities, and limits, of regional cooperation.

Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek has been transformed as the city prepares to host the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit

Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek has been transformed as the city prepares to host the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. Flags of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states line the capital’s main avenues, blue-and-white SCO ribbons wrap street lamps, and multilingual banners welcome arriving leaders. Among them is India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose presence underscores New Delhi’s continued engagement with the grouping it joined as a full member in 2017. India’s priorities for the gathering centre around security, connectivity and civilizational link with the Eurasian landmass. On security, New Delhi is expected to reiterate its long-standing call for stronger collective action against terrorism, radicalisation and cross-border threats. At previous summits Indian PM Modi urged members to reject double standards and hold accountable those who support or finance terrorism. On Connectivity, India seeks practical advances in transport and trade links across Central Asia. Other focus areas include trade, investment, technology and people-to-people exchanges, including civilisational dialogues and youth programmes that India has promoted to deepen cultural ties. "India’s priorities in SCO are based on secure SCO, during the Prime Minister’s address at the 2018 summit we have seen what secure stands for: Security, Economy and trade, Connectivity, Unity, Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and Environment", Secretary West in MEA Sibi George said ahead of the visit. The visit also reinforces India’s broader strategic partnership with Central Asia and its preference for a multipolar, cooperative Eurasian order. In fact, the Indian PM travels to Kyrgyzstan from Uzbekistan. He is slated to have several bilateral meetings with his counterparts on the sidelines of the SCO summit. The summit, hosted by Kyrgyzstan, comes at a moment of heightened global tension, particularly the conflict in West Asia. With Iran now a full SCO member, the organisation’s collective position will be closely watched. Yet the immediate atmosphere in Bishkek remains one of ceremonial readiness. Officials have polished the city centre, arranged floral displays and prepared venues for both the formal sessions and a series of bilateral meetings on the sidelines. As leaders prepare to sit down for talks, the fluttering flags and carefully arranged displays send a clear message: Bishkek is open for business, and the SCO remains a forum where India, Central Asian states and other members continue to test the possibilities, and limits, of regional cooperation.

Flags of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states line the capital’s main avenues, blue-and-white SCO ribbons wrap street lamps, and multilingual banners welcome arriving leaders

Bishkek prepares for SCO summit as PM Modi set to join Eurasian leaders

The upcoming midterm elections in the US are turning out to be a high-stakes race, not only for diplomatic ramifications, but also for domestic issues and influence.&nbsp;According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, major US firms are already preparing for a possible turnaround in congressional control this November.&nbsp;Companies with close ties to US President Donald Trump in particular are reportedly taking measures to gain favour with the opposing camp, the Democrats.&nbsp;The steps come amid a possible chance that the blue camp may flip the House of Representatives and claim the majority, which the Republicans currently control.&nbsp;Several companies that donated vast sums of money to Trump's projects are now preparing for possible congressional and even potential criminal investigations. So, how are these companies trying to wade through this uncertain political landscape?&nbsp;Well, the report says that major corporate organisations are trying to balance out the money given to the red camp by now donating millions to Democratic lawmakers ahead of the midterms.&nbsp;Executives and board members from some large public companies across sectors are reportedly discussing how to stay out of Democratic crosshairs and how to stay as neutral as possible to evade formal subpoenas and investigations if the House flips in the next three months.&nbsp;The change in strategy also comes amid statements from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said that the Democratic Party is focused on affordability, as well as holding companies accountable.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/xi-consolidates-power-china-s-top-military-body-left-with-just-two-after-generals-purged-1787923218445">Xi consolidates power: China’s top military body left with just two after generals purged</a>&nbsp;Jeffries is likely to become the House Speaker in the scenario that the Democrats do cross the simple majority mark.&nbsp;This is what the existing makeup of the House of Representatives looks like. Out of a total of 435 seats, Republicans currently have 219, while Democrats represent 212 of the seats.&nbsp;The halfway mark is at 218, and this is where it gets interesting. There are currently four vacant seats in the House. These seats are only filled by a special election or the next approaching election cycle.The four vacancies are from the following parts of America: the 14th District of California, the 23rd District of Texas, the 20th District of Florida and the 13th District of Georgia.&nbsp;The midterms are turning out to be a high-stakes battle for all stakeholders, but more so for the incumbent president and his Republican Party, especially if popularity polls are anything to go by.&nbsp;The past few polls have shown a steady decline in Trump's popularity overall, but the biggest trigger has been voters' unhappiness with the long-drawn Iran war and Trump's handling of the economy.It appears that companies that contributed millions to the president's legacy projects are also looking at how the numbers stack up in popularity polls.&nbsp;Hence, the decision to regroup and strategise on a potential change in the power structure at Capitol Hill.&nbsp;The question is: Will their early outreach to the Democrats help them evade scrutiny?

Major US companies with close ties to Donald Trump are reportedly reaching out to Democrats and hedging their political bets as they prepare for a possible Democratic takeover of the House in the 2026 midterm elections.

The upcoming midterm elections in the US are turning out to be a high-stakes race, not only for diplomatic ramifications, but also for domestic issues and influence. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, major US firms are already preparing for a possible turnaround in congressional control this November. Companies with close ties to US President Donald Trump in particular are reportedly taking measures to gain favour with the opposing camp, the Democrats. The steps come amid a possible chance that the blue camp may flip the House of Representatives and claim the majority, which the Republicans currently control. Several companies that donated vast sums of money to Trump's projects are now preparing for possible congressional and even potential criminal investigations. So, how are these companies trying to wade through this uncertain political landscape? Well, the report says that major corporate organisations are trying to balance out the money given to the red camp by now donating millions to Democratic lawmakers ahead of the midterms. Executives and board members from some large public companies across sectors are reportedly discussing how to stay out of Democratic crosshairs and how to stay as neutral as possible to evade formal subpoenas and investigations if the House flips in the next three months. The change in strategy also comes amid statements from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said that the Democratic Party is focused on affordability, as well as holding companies accountable. Also Read: Xi consolidates power: China’s top military body left with just two after generals purged Jeffries is likely to become the House Speaker in the scenario that the Democrats do cross the simple majority mark. This is what the existing makeup of the House of Representatives looks like. Out of a total of 435 seats, Republicans currently have 219, while Democrats represent 212 of the seats. The halfway mark is at 218, and this is where it gets interesting. There are currently four vacant seats in the House. These seats are only filled by a special election or the next approaching election cycle. The four vacancies are from the following parts of America: the 14th District of California, the 23rd District of Texas, the 20th District of Florida and the 13th District of Georgia. The midterms are turning out to be a high-stakes battle for all stakeholders, but more so for the incumbent president and his Republican Party, especially if popularity polls are anything to go by. The past few polls have shown a steady decline in Trump's popularity overall, but the biggest trigger has been voters' unhappiness with the long-drawn Iran war and Trump's handling of the economy. It appears that companies that contributed millions to the president's legacy projects are also looking at how the numbers stack up in popularity polls. Hence, the decision to regroup and strategise on a potential change in the power structure at Capitol Hill. The question is: Will their early outreach to the Democrats help them evade scrutiny?

Major US companies with close ties to Donald Trump are reportedly reaching out to Democrats and hedging their political bets as they prepare for a possible Democratic takeover of the House in the 2026 midterm elections.

US midterms: Companies close to Trump prepare for possible Democratic takeover of House | Race to Power

On August 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement in the presence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The trilateral collective-defence compact declares that an armed attack on any one of the three shall be treated as an attack on all.&nbsp;The alliance is aimed at forming a group credible like NATO. But does this alliance work for Pakistan and gives it an edge over its foe India? In fact has the Mecca pact weakened Pakistan as it would have to stretch in its military commitments?<h2>Pakistan's situation on the Indian border</h2>&nbsp;According to an estimate, about 80 per cent of the country’s deployable capacity, from a standing army of 600,000, was stationed between Kargil and Kutch on the Indian front. But they had to pull out some of its troops due to the rising tensions in he Baloch, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and Afghan operations. And now the Mecca pact may demand Pakistan to send forces to Yemen the south of Saudi Arabia to Somalia and perhaps farther south to Sudan later, which depletes Islamabad's strength on the Indian border, wrote Former Union Minister and Senior Indian journalist MJ Akbar in Open Magazine.&nbsp;In fact Pakistan is believed to have sent 13,000 troops and 20 combat jets already for its new commitments to the Mecca Pact.&nbsp;"Any upscale against the Houthis will require more troops. Each addi­tional soldier, each additional jet there means that much less on the Indian front. Pakistan has a good defence industry, and drones are arriving from Turkey. But every commander knows that the danger zone lies in the space between stretch and overstretch," said Akbar.<h2>Weak Pakistan economy</h2>&nbsp;For years Pakistan military establishment has extorted public funds by setting a narrative that India’s secret desire is to reverse Partition. However, no Indian in today's time thinks in that direction. In fact Kashmiris in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) are not happy with Pakistan as they see themselves being treated as colonised subjects.&nbsp;Pakistan's economy has never been in a stable state. It has always depended on other countries for funds to run its economy.&nbsp;"This August Riyadh sent another $3 billion to the State Bank of Pakistan as blood transfusion, making the total debt $8 billion in addition to $1.2 billion in deferred payment for oil supply facility. Islamabad is waiting for America to ease the pressure of $10 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The total external debt of Pakistan is nearly $140 billion, of which $70 billion is to China. Its total internal and external debt of near $300 billion adds up to nearly 70 per cent of GDP. Pakistan is saved by a Saudi drip feed," said Akbar.&nbsp;Kashmir is Pakistan’s fixation but Indians know that Kashmir is an integral part of India and will remain so.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Mecca pact may demand Pakistan to send forces to Yemen the south of Saudi Arabia to Somalia and perhaps farther south to Sudan later, which depletes Islamabad's strength on the Indian border.

On August 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement in the presence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The trilateral collective-defence compact declares that an armed attack on any one of the three shall be treated as an attack on all. The alliance is aimed at forming a group credible like NATO. But does this alliance work for Pakistan and gives it an edge over its foe India? In fact has the Mecca pact weakened Pakistan as it would have to stretch in its military commitments? Pakistan's situation on the Indian border According to an estimate, about 80 per cent of the country’s deployable capacity, from a standing army of 600,000, was stationed between Kargil and Kutch on the Indian front. But they had to pull out some of its troops due to the rising tensions in he Baloch, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and Afghan operations. And now the Mecca pact may demand Pakistan to send forces to Yemen the south of Saudi Arabia to Somalia and perhaps farther south to Sudan later, which depletes Islamabad's strength on the Indian border, wrote Former Union Minister and Senior Indian journalist MJ Akbar in Open Magazine. In fact Pakistan is believed to have sent 13,000 troops and 20 combat jets already for its new commitments to the Mecca Pact. "Any upscale against the Houthis will require more troops. Each additional soldier, each additional jet there means that much less on the Indian front. Pakistan has a good defence industry, and drones are arriving from Turkey. But every commander knows that the danger zone lies in the space between stretch and overstretch," said Akbar. Weak Pakistan economy For years Pakistan military establishment has extorted public funds by setting a narrative that India’s secret desire is to reverse Partition. However, no Indian in today's time thinks in that direction. In fact Kashmiris in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) are not happy with Pakistan as they see themselves being treated as colonised subjects. Pakistan's economy has never been in a stable state. It has always depended on other countries for funds to run its economy. "This August Riyadh sent another $3 billion to the State Bank of Pakistan as blood transfusion, making the total debt $8 billion in addition to $1.2 billion in deferred payment for oil supply facility. Islamabad is waiting for America to ease the pressure of $10 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The total external debt of Pakistan is nearly $140 billion, of which $70 billion is to China. Its total internal and external debt of near $300 billion adds up to nearly 70 per cent of GDP. Pakistan is saved by a Saudi drip feed," said Akbar. Kashmir is Pakistan’s fixation but Indians know that Kashmir is an integral part of India and will remain so.

Mecca pact may demand Pakistan to send forces to Yemen the south of Saudi Arabia to Somalia and perhaps farther south to Sudan later, which depletes Islamabad's strength on the Indian border.

Mecca Pact: Why Pakistan may have emerged weaker in the conflict with India. WION DECODES

Iran has hit back at US President Donald Trump, with a senior Iranian official labelling him “schizophrenic” over his remarks on the Strait of Hormuz and urging countries to reject what Tehran called Washington’s “illegal” sanctions. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Qaribabadi made the remarks in a social media post on Friday (Aug 28), referring to an image circulated by Trump that presented the strategically important waterway as part of US territory.Qaribabadi described schizophrenia as a disorder involving altered thinking and a distorted perception of reality, before referring to “hallucination and delusion” in an apparent jibe at Trump. He also said psychologists recommend that patients with such conditions be monitored and treated around the clock, in a sarcastic reference to the US president.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/weapons-equipment-technical-and-tactical-iran-says-it-has-new-surprises-ready-if-another-war-breaks-out-1787911559031">‘Weapons, equipment, technical and tactical’: Iran says it has new ‘surprises’ ready if another war breaks out</a>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/%D8%A7%D8%B3%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%86%DB%8C?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#اسکیزوفرنی</a> نوعی اختلال روان پریشی پیچیده و حاد است که با اختلال در تفکر و درک تحریف شده از واقعیت متبلور می‌شود. شایع‌ترین علامت آن نیز <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%87%D9%85?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#توهم</a> و <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/%D9%87%D8%B0%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#هذیان</a> است. روانشناسان توصیه می کنند چنین بیمارانی باید به‌صورت ۲۴ ساعته تحت نظر باشند و درمان شوند. <a href="https://t.co/e9UywAX4iK">pic.twitter.com/e9UywAX4iK</a>&mdash; Gharibabadi (@Gharibabadi) <a href="https://x.com/Gharibabadi/status/2093268617823445346?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump had earlier described the Strait of Hormuz as “open” and said Iran’s response to US military action was “very moderate”, according to US news outlet Axios. He added that Tehran did not want the US to attack it again.The remarks came amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran over sanctions targeting Iran’s economy and pressure on countries trading with the Islamic Republic.In a separate statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry urged the international community not to enforce the US sanctions, calling them “completely illegal and unjustified”. The ministry said the measures violated the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and human rights, and argued that countries should neither impose the sanctions nor recognise their effects.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/great-near-great-below-average-trump-puts-himself-above-lincoln-washington-in-bizarre-ranking-of-greatest-us-presidents-1787903513307">‘Great, near great, below average’: Trump puts himself above Lincoln, Washington in bizarre ranking of ‘greatest’ US presidents</a>Tehran warned that countries joining the US pressure campaign would be helping impose Washington’s policies on sovereign states and disrupt legitimate economic and commercial relations. Iran also accused the US sanctions policy of undermining the principle of sovereign equality between states.

Iran slammed US President Donald Trump, calling him "schizophrenic" after he presented the Strait of Hormuz as US territory. Tehran also urged the international community to reject "illegal" US sanctions.

Iran has hit back at US President Donald Trump, with a senior Iranian official labelling him “schizophrenic” over his remarks on the Strait of Hormuz and urging countries to reject what Tehran called Washington’s “illegal” sanctions. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Qaribabadi made the remarks in a social media post on Friday (Aug 28), referring to an image circulated by Trump that presented the strategically important waterway as part of US territory. Qaribabadi described schizophrenia as a disorder involving altered thinking and a distorted perception of reality, before referring to “hallucination and delusion” in an apparent jibe at Trump. He also said psychologists recommend that patients with such conditions be monitored and treated around the clock, in a sarcastic reference to the US president. Also read: ‘Weapons, equipment, technical and tactical’: Iran says it has new ‘surprises’ ready if another war breaks out

Iran slammed US President Donald Trump, calling him "schizophrenic" after he presented the Strait of Hormuz as US territory. Tehran also urged the international community to reject "illegal" US sanctions.

‘Schizophrenia, hallucinations, delusions’: Iran slams Trump, advises him to consult psychologists after US prez calls Hormuz ‘US terrotory’

China has officially removed Vice Chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia and Commissioner Liu Zhenli from their posts in the latest corruption-related purge led by President Xi Jinping.&nbsp;According to Xinhua, China’s National People’s Congress decided on Friday to strip Zhang Youxia of his position as vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of the People’s Republic of China at the closing meeting of its Standing Committee. Liu Zhenli, a Central Military Commission Commissioner who fell from power alongside Zhang, also lost his position.&nbsp;The CMC serves as China’s most important military decision-making body and Xi Jinping chairs it.Chinese authorities launched investigations into Zhang and Liu in January after the Defence Ministry said the two were "suspected of serious violations of discipline and the law", a phrase commonly used to refer to corruption.&nbsp;The latest removals come as part of the sweeping anti-graft campaign that has defined Xi’s time in power. Zhang’s removal carries added significance because of his seniority and his perceived closeness to Xi.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/they-bought-tickets-to-steal-thieves-walk-into-austria-museum-and-flee-with-200-carat-platinum-diamond-necklace-1787914916267">They bought tickets to steal: Thieves walk into Austria museum and flee with 200-carat platinum diamond necklace</a><h3>CMC left with just two known members</h3>The removal of Zhang and Liu leaves the seven-member CMC with only two known representatives: Xi Jinping and anti-corruption chief Zhang Shengmin.&nbsp;The authorities have not disclosed the whereabouts of Zhang and Liu or provided details about the accusations against them.&nbsp;According to a CNN report citing the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, authorities have officially purged 36 generals and lieutenant generals since 2022. Another 65 officers are listed as missing or potentially purged.&nbsp;The latest purge is seen as part of Xi’s longstanding effort to clean up China’s military as he continues to tighten his grip on power and push ahead with major military modernisation.

China has removed top generals Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli from the Central Military Commission in a corruption purge, leaving the key military body with only Xi Jinping and one other known member.

China has officially removed Vice Chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia and Commissioner Liu Zhenli from their posts in the latest corruption-related purge led by President Xi Jinping. According to Xinhua, China’s National People’s Congress decided on Friday to strip Zhang Youxia of his position as vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of the People’s Republic of China at the closing meeting of its Standing Committee. Liu Zhenli, a Central Military Commission Commissioner who fell from power alongside Zhang, also lost his position. The CMC serves as China’s most important military decision-making body and Xi Jinping chairs it. Chinese authorities launched investigations into Zhang and Liu in January after the Defence Ministry said the two were "suspected of serious violations of discipline and the law", a phrase commonly used to refer to corruption. The latest removals come as part of the sweeping anti-graft campaign that has defined Xi’s time in power. Zhang’s removal carries added significance because of his seniority and his perceived closeness to Xi. Also Read: They bought tickets to steal: Thieves walk into Austria museum and flee with 200-carat platinum diamond necklace CMC left with just two known members The removal of Zhang and Liu leaves the seven-member CMC with only two known representatives: Xi Jinping and anti-corruption chief Zhang Shengmin. The authorities have not disclosed the whereabouts of Zhang and Liu or provided details about the accusations against them. According to a CNN report citing the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, authorities have officially purged 36 generals and lieutenant generals since 2022. Another 65 officers are listed as missing or potentially purged. The latest purge is seen as part of Xi’s longstanding effort to clean up China’s military as he continues to tighten his grip on power and push ahead with major military modernisation.

China has removed top generals Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli from the Central Military Commission in a corruption purge, leaving the key military body with only Xi Jinping and one other known member.

Xi consolidates power: China’s top military body left with just two after generals purged

CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a highly sensitive diplomatic trip to Moscow this week at the personal direction of President Donald Trump, with some senior White House officials reportedly unaware of the mission beforehand. Trump personally sent Ratcliffe to Russia and limited advance knowledge of the trip, including the specific message he was expected to deliver to senior Kremlin officials, according to US officials.&nbsp;The unusual mission came after several rounds of diplomacy involving other Trump administration envoys failed to halt the fighting in Russia’s war against Ukraine. In recent months, Moscow has intensified its attacks on Ukraine, strengthened its support for Iran’s regime and resisted US efforts to expand economic engagement. Ratcliffe traveled secretly to Moscow aboard an unmarked US C-17 military transport aircraft from Latvia. The visit prompted European officials to seek information after reports of the trip emerged.&nbsp;After receiving briefings, two European officials said Ratcliffe reiterated to Russian intelligence officials that Washington remained committed to NATO’s Article 5, under which an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. The Wall Street Journal had previously reported that Ratcliffe warned Russian officials against attacking NATO countries. The CIA director’s visit comes as U.S. and European intelligence assessments warn that Moscow could test NATO’s resolve within the next several years. European officials have also raised concerns that Russia has accumulated Ukrainian drones that could potentially be used in a false-flag operation against countries on NATO’s eastern flank.&nbsp;Despite those concerns, Trump said on Thursday that he did not expect Putin to attack NATO members. Trump said Putin “won’t attack NATO territory.” Ratcliffe also discussed efforts to restart negotiations aimed at ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to U.S. and European officials. Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said on Thursday that talks could resume in September. The CIA chief additionally urged Russian officials not to continue economic and security cooperation with Iran as the Trump administration increases pressure and sanctions against Tehran.&nbsp;The CIA declined to comment on Ratcliffe’s trip. The White House referred to Trump’s recent public remarks, including an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck in which Trump described the CIA director’s journey as “semi-routine.” The diplomatic mission comes amid growing concern in Europe over Russia’s military intentions. Some leaders, particularly in NATO’s eastern member states, sought to reassure their populations Thursday. “There is currently no reason for concern,” Latvia’s Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs said in a video posted on social media. “Latvia’s level of military threat hasn’t changed. The risk of direct military invasion threats to Latvia is currently low.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-vp-says-he-would-have-stopped-enrichment-if-he-knew-us-would-kill-supreme-leader-ali-khamenei-1787922341818">Iran VP says he would have stopped enrichment if he knew US would kill Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei</a>&nbsp;Nevertheless, European officials say Russia is already conducting an expanding hybrid campaign against Ukraine’s European allies. The alleged campaign has included drones, cruise missiles, cyberattacks and explosive-filled packages, raising fears that an incident could trigger a broader confrontation. European leaders view these actions as part of an effort to weaken support for Ukraine and undermine NATO unity. US and European officials assess that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to pursue the strategic objective of taking control of Ukraine. According to those assessments, the Kremlin is revising potential military plans involving NATO after Russia suffered significant battlefield casualties, weapons shortages and economic pressure during the war.&nbsp;The concern extends beyond the immediate conflict. Several European officials believe Russia could represent a substantially greater conventional military threat by 2030, when Moscow could have rebuilt forces depleted by the Ukraine war while European countries are still expanding their own military capabilities. Ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has remained a major foreign-policy objective for Trump during his second term. He has repeatedly sent special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow for meetings with Putin and later involved his son-in-law Jared Kushner in the diplomatic effort.&nbsp;Secretary of State Marco Rubio and former Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg have also traveled internationally to engage with representatives of both Russia and Ukraine. Trump also held a summit with Putin in Alaska last August in an attempt to break the diplomatic deadlock. The meeting failed to produce a final agreement, while Trump administration officials subsequently continued pressing Ukraine to consider territorial concessions in eastern areas that Russia had not fully captured.&nbsp;Ratcliffe's experience with Russia may have influenced Trump's decision to send him. US officials said the CIA director has helped secure the release of American hostages held in Russia and has experience working through the agency's longstanding relationships with Russian intelligence services. His close position within Trump's inner circle, combined with his knowledge of Moscow's intelligence establishment, makes Ratcliffe a potentially valuable channel for sensitive negotiations, US officials said.&nbsp;Former senior US intelligence official and Senate national-security adviser JC Lintzenich said Ratcliffe's decision to deliver Trump's message personally was intended to make clear that diplomatic efforts over Ukraine would not weaken Washington's security commitments to Europe.&nbsp;“Putin has a tolerance for extraordinary risk and is even potentially willing to escalate to compel de-escalation, but he is unlikely to roll the dice on actions that could threaten the Russian state,” said Lintzenich, now a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund think tank in Washington, DC. Ratcliffe's mission therefore carried two messages at once: Washington remains interested in negotiations to end the Ukraine war, but Trump's pursuit of peace does not mean the United States is prepared to compromise on NATO's collective-defense commitments.

John Ratcliffe’s secret Russia trip delivers Trump’s message on Ukraine peace talks, NATO Article 5, Russia and Iran to Kremlin officials

CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a highly sensitive diplomatic trip to Moscow this week at the personal direction of President Donald Trump, with some senior White House officials reportedly unaware of the mission beforehand. Trump personally sent Ratcliffe to Russia and limited advance knowledge of the trip, including the specific message he was expected to deliver to senior Kremlin officials, according to US officials. The unusual mission came after several rounds of diplomacy involving other Trump administration envoys failed to halt the fighting in Russia’s war against Ukraine. In recent months, Moscow has intensified its attacks on Ukraine, strengthened its support for Iran’s regime and resisted US efforts to expand economic engagement. Ratcliffe traveled secretly to Moscow aboard an unmarked US C-17 military transport aircraft from Latvia. The visit prompted European officials to seek information after reports of the trip emerged. After receiving briefings, two European officials said Ratcliffe reiterated to Russian intelligence officials that Washington remained committed to NATO’s Article 5, under which an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. The Wall Street Journal had previously reported that Ratcliffe warned Russian officials against attacking NATO countries. The CIA director’s visit comes as U.S. and European intelligence assessments warn that Moscow could test NATO’s resolve within the next several years. European officials have also raised concerns that Russia has accumulated Ukrainian drones that could potentially be used in a false-flag operation against countries on NATO’s eastern flank. Despite those concerns, Trump said on Thursday that he did not expect Putin to attack NATO members. Trump said Putin “won’t attack NATO territory.” Ratcliffe also discussed efforts to restart negotiations aimed at ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to U.S. and European officials. Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said on Thursday that talks could resume in September. The CIA chief additionally urged Russian officials not to continue economic and security cooperation with Iran as the Trump administration increases pressure and sanctions against Tehran. The CIA declined to comment on Ratcliffe’s trip. The White House referred to Trump’s recent public remarks, including an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck in which Trump described the CIA director’s journey as “semi-routine.” The diplomatic mission comes amid growing concern in Europe over Russia’s military intentions. Some leaders, particularly in NATO’s eastern member states, sought to reassure their populations Thursday. “There is currently no reason for concern,” Latvia’s Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs said in a video posted on social media. “Latvia’s level of military threat hasn’t changed. The risk of direct military invasion threats to Latvia is currently low.” Also Read: Iran VP says he would have stopped enrichment if he knew US would kill Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Nevertheless, European officials say Russia is already conducting an expanding hybrid campaign against Ukraine’s European allies. The alleged campaign has included drones, cruise missiles, cyberattacks and explosive-filled packages, raising fears that an incident could trigger a broader confrontation. European leaders view these actions as part of an effort to weaken support for Ukraine and undermine NATO unity. US and European officials assess that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to pursue the strategic objective of taking control of Ukraine. According to those assessments, the Kremlin is revising potential military plans involving NATO after Russia suffered significant battlefield casualties, weapons shortages and economic pressure during the war. The concern extends beyond the immediate conflict. Several European officials believe Russia could represent a substantially greater conventional military threat by 2030, when Moscow could have rebuilt forces depleted by the Ukraine war while European countries are still expanding their own military capabilities. Ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has remained a major foreign-policy objective for Trump during his second term. He has repeatedly sent special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow for meetings with Putin and later involved his son-in-law Jared Kushner in the diplomatic effort. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and former Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg have also traveled internationally to engage with representatives of both Russia and Ukraine. Trump also held a summit with Putin in Alaska last August in an attempt to break the diplomatic deadlock. The meeting failed to produce a final agreement, while Trump administration officials subsequently continued pressing Ukraine to consider territorial concessions in eastern areas that Russia had not fully captured. Ratcliffe's experience with Russia may have influenced Trump's decision to send him. US officials said the CIA director has helped secure the release of American hostages held in Russia and has experience working through the agency's longstanding relationships with Russian intelligence services. His close position within Trump's inner circle, combined with his knowledge of Moscow's intelligence establishment, makes Ratcliffe a potentially valuable channel for sensitive negotiations, US officials said. Former senior US intelligence official and Senate national-security adviser JC Lintzenich said Ratcliffe's decision to deliver Trump's message personally was intended to make clear that diplomatic efforts over Ukraine would not weaken Washington's security commitments to Europe. “Putin has a tolerance for extraordinary risk and is even potentially willing to escalate to compel de-escalation, but he is unlikely to roll the dice on actions that could threaten the Russian state,” said Lintzenich, now a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund think tank in Washington, DC. Ratcliffe's mission therefore carried two messages at once: Washington remains interested in negotiations to end the Ukraine war, but Trump's pursuit of peace does not mean the United States is prepared to compromise on NATO's collective-defense commitments.

John Ratcliffe’s secret Moscow mission delivered Trump’s message on Ukraine, NATO security and Russia’s growing ties with Iran

CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s 'secret' Moscow trip caught senior White House officials off guard

Iranian Vice President Jafar Ghaempanah has said he would have halted uranium enrichment if he had known that the United States would kill Iran's Supreme Leader, according to remarks carried by Iranian state media. “If it were me, and I knew America would martyr our leader, I would have stopped enrichment,” Ghaempanah, executive vice president to President Masoud Pezeshkian, said.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/weapons-equipment-technical-and-tactical-iran-says-it-has-new-surprises-ready-if-another-war-breaks-out-1787911559031">‘Weapons, equipment, technical and tactical’: Iran says it has new ‘surprises’ ready if another war breaks out</a>&nbsp;His comments came while discussing the costs Iran could face in pursuing its nuclear programme and other objectives.&nbsp;Ghaempanah questioned why Iranian infrastructure and industries should be targeted in a conflict.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/great-near-great-below-average-trump-puts-himself-above-lincoln-washington-in-bizarre-ranking-of-greatest-us-presidents-1787903513307">‘Great, near great, below average’: Trump puts himself above Lincoln, Washington in bizarre ranking of ‘greatest’ US presidents</a>&nbsp;“Why should they hit our industries and our roads? Why should they hit our refineries and electricity?” he said, adding that attacks on electricity infrastructure and refineries could increase unemployment.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-don-t-need-canada-they-need-us-trump-announces-50-tariffs-on-imported-cars-trucks-from-canada-starting-jan-2027-1787583181567">‘WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US’: Trump announces 50% tariffs on imported cars, trucks from Canada starting Jan 2027</a>&nbsp;He said Iran should avoid paying excessive costs for objectives that could be achieved at a lower price.&nbsp;“What cost could be higher than the martyrdom of the Supreme Leader?” Ghaempanah said.&nbsp;“We are not all supposed to become martyrs. Iran is supposed to remain,” he added.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/a-human-rights-emergency-jemima-goldsmith-urges-uk-pm-andy-burnham-to-intervene-over-ex-husband-imran-khan-s-prison-treatment-1787568862766">'A human-rights emergency': Jemima Goldsmith urges UK PM Andy Burnham to intervene over ex-husband Imran Khan’s prison treatment</a>&nbsp;

Iranian VP Jafar Ghaempanah stated he would have halted uranium enrichment to prevent the US from killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, emphasising that Iran must avoid paying high costs for its objectives.

Iranian Vice President Jafar Ghaempanah has said he would have halted uranium enrichment if he had known that the United States would kill Iran's Supreme Leader, according to remarks carried by Iranian state media. “If it were me, and I knew America would martyr our leader, I would have stopped enrichment,” Ghaempanah, executive vice president to President Masoud Pezeshkian, said. Also read: ‘Weapons, equipment, technical and tactical’: Iran says it has new ‘surprises’ ready if another war breaks out His comments came while discussing the costs Iran could face in pursuing its nuclear programme and other objectives. Ghaempanah questioned why Iranian infrastructure and industries should be targeted in a conflict. Also read: ‘Great, near great, below average’: Trump puts himself above Lincoln, Washington in bizarre ranking of ‘greatest’ US presidents “Why should they hit our industries and our roads? Why should they hit our refineries and electricity?” he said, adding that attacks on electricity infrastructure and refineries could increase unemployment. Also read: ‘WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US’: Trump announces 50% tariffs on imported cars, trucks from Canada starting Jan 2027 He said Iran should avoid paying excessive costs for objectives that could be achieved at a lower price. “What cost could be higher than the martyrdom of the Supreme Leader?” Ghaempanah said. “We are not all supposed to become martyrs. Iran is supposed to remain,” he added. Also read: 'A human-rights emergency': Jemima Goldsmith urges UK PM Andy Burnham to intervene over ex-husband Imran Khan’s prison treatment

Iranian VP Jafar Ghaempanah stated he would have halted uranium enrichment to prevent the US from killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, emphasising that Iran must avoid paying high costs for its objectives.

Iran VP says he would have stopped enrichment if he knew US would kill Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

Comfortable in a duffel coat as well as ceremonial attire, Norway's new monarch, King Haakon VIII, takes charge of a royal institution long admired for its modesty and modern outlook, but one now facing a series of scandals and family troubles. Haakon automatically became king on Friday after his father, King Harald, died peacefully earlier in the day. During a meeting with the government, the 53-year-old monarch said he would retain the motto shared by his father and grandfather: "All for Norway."&nbsp;In recent years, Haakon has watched his family's private affairs become increasingly prominent in the Norwegian media. The controversies have included his wife's lung transplant, revelations about her association with convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the rape conviction involving his stepson, and the activities of his unconventional sister and her American husband, self-described shaman Durek Verrett. Harald had previously expressed confidence in his son's ability to assume the throne. "Everything will be fine with him when the time comes. It is reassuring to know that," the late King Harald said of him in a book."I am fortunate that it is Crown Prince Haakon who has to take over," Harald said, musing that his own father had probably been more worried about the succession&nbsp;Tall, bearded and dignified, Haakon has cultivated an image of restraint that reflects Norway's broader preference for simplicity over royal extravagance. His marriage to Mette-Marit, a commoner and former single mother, was initially controversial but eventually gained acceptance among many Norwegians. As crown prince, Haakon has also highlighted issues important to younger generations, including environmental protection and opposition to racism and homophobia. "It's important that we protect who we are and for Norway to be a country where we're allowed to love and be with whoever we want," he said the day after a bloody attack against the gay community in Oslo in June 2022.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-floods-over-400-indians-safe-in-china-others-still-unreachable-as-mea-steps-up-rescue-1787917861433">Nepal floods: Over 400 Indians safe in China, others still unreachable as MEA steps up rescue</a><h2>From ordinary schools to the royal palace</h2>Born on July 20, 1973, Haakon attended state-run daycare and public schools. His parents, King Harald and Queen Sonja, deliberately wanted him to experience life alongside ordinary Norwegian children. After serving in the navy, he studied political science at the University of California in Berkeley, where he earned a bachelor's degree. He later completed a master's degree in international politics at the London School of Economics.&nbsp;Away from official duties, Haakon enjoys skiing, surfing and windsurfing and has a strong interest in music. He met Mette-Marit Tjessem Hoiby at a music festival in Kristiansand in southern Norway in 1999. Her personal history became a major topic of discussion in Norway before their marriage. At the time, Mette-Marit was a single mother to her young son, Marius, from a previous relationship with a man who had a significant criminal record that included assault and cocaine possession.&nbsp;Despite the controversy, the couple's relationship eventually won wider public acceptance. They later had two children together: Princess Ingrid Alexandra, born in 2004 and expected to become queen one day, and Prince Sverre Magnus, born in 2005.<h2>Royal family hit by a series of controversies</h2>The family's difficulties have continued to mount. Haakon's sister, Princess Martha-Louise, has faced repeated criticism over claims that she has used her royal title for commercial activities. Her marriage in 2024 to Durek Verrett, an American self-described shaman, generated further controversy, with critics calling him a “charlatan.” The family's troubles intensified when Haakon's stepson, Marius, was arrested in August 2024. He was sentenced to four years in prison in June 2026 for rape and assault and has appealed the ruling.&nbsp;Around the same period, Mette-Marit underwent a lung transplant after being diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis in 2018.Further controversy emerged in February when Norwegian media reported on her past friendship with Epstein. The reports detailed frequent contact between the two in the early 2010s, despite Epstein's previous conviction for soliciting a minor.Mette-Marit subsequently said she had been "manipulated and deceived".&nbsp;"When you get married, it's for better or for worse," Haakon remarked in March during a televised interview the gave about the Epstein revelations. The succession comes at a difficult moment for Norway's royal family. The controversies have damaged its public image and reduced support for the monarchy, although the institution remains broadly popular.&nbsp;Despite the turmoil, Haakon has received praise for maintaining a calm public presence. Haakon has nevertheless "shown himself to be a man who remains steady in the face of a storm, and that is a very valuable quality in a monarch," Caroline Vagle, a reporter for magazine Se og Hor, told AFP. "He has also had the best teacher he could possibly have had in his father," she added.A poll conducted in March found that almost eight in 10 Norwegians believed Haakon would make a good king, suggesting that despite the controversies surrounding his family, the new monarch retains substantial public confidence.

King Haakon VIII becomes Norway's new monarch as the royal family faces scandals, controversy and scrutiny while he seeks to preserve public trust

Comfortable in a duffel coat as well as ceremonial attire, Norway's new monarch, King Haakon VIII, takes charge of a royal institution long admired for its modesty and modern outlook, but one now facing a series of scandals and family troubles. Haakon automatically became king on Friday after his father, King Harald, died peacefully earlier in the day. During a meeting with the government, the 53-year-old monarch said he would retain the motto shared by his father and grandfather: "All for Norway." In recent years, Haakon has watched his family's private affairs become increasingly prominent in the Norwegian media. The controversies have included his wife's lung transplant, revelations about her association with convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the rape conviction involving his stepson, and the activities of his unconventional sister and her American husband, self-described shaman Durek Verrett. Harald had previously expressed confidence in his son's ability to assume the throne. "Everything will be fine with him when the time comes. It is reassuring to know that," the late King Harald said of him in a book. "I am fortunate that it is Crown Prince Haakon who has to take over," Harald said, musing that his own father had probably been more worried about the succession Tall, bearded and dignified, Haakon has cultivated an image of restraint that reflects Norway's broader preference for simplicity over royal extravagance. His marriage to Mette-Marit, a commoner and former single mother, was initially controversial but eventually gained acceptance among many Norwegians. As crown prince, Haakon has also highlighted issues important to younger generations, including environmental protection and opposition to racism and homophobia. "It's important that we protect who we are and for Norway to be a country where we're allowed to love and be with whoever we want," he said the day after a bloody attack against the gay community in Oslo in June 2022. Also Read: Nepal floods: Over 400 Indians safe in China, others still unreachable as MEA steps up rescue From ordinary schools to the royal palace Born on July 20, 1973, Haakon attended state-run daycare and public schools. His parents, King Harald and Queen Sonja, deliberately wanted him to experience life alongside ordinary Norwegian children. After serving in the navy, he studied political science at the University of California in Berkeley, where he earned a bachelor's degree. He later completed a master's degree in international politics at the London School of Economics. Away from official duties, Haakon enjoys skiing, surfing and windsurfing and has a strong interest in music. He met Mette-Marit Tjessem Hoiby at a music festival in Kristiansand in southern Norway in 1999. Her personal history became a major topic of discussion in Norway before their marriage. At the time, Mette-Marit was a single mother to her young son, Marius, from a previous relationship with a man who had a significant criminal record that included assault and cocaine possession. Despite the controversy, the couple's relationship eventually won wider public acceptance. They later had two children together: Princess Ingrid Alexandra, born in 2004 and expected to become queen one day, and Prince Sverre Magnus, born in 2005. Royal family hit by a series of controversies The family's difficulties have continued to mount. Haakon's sister, Princess Martha-Louise, has faced repeated criticism over claims that she has used her royal title for commercial activities. Her marriage in 2024 to Durek Verrett, an American self-described shaman, generated further controversy, with critics calling him a “charlatan.” The family's troubles intensified when Haakon's stepson, Marius, was arrested in August 2024. He was sentenced to four years in prison in June 2026 for rape and assault and has appealed the ruling. Around the same period, Mette-Marit underwent a lung transplant after being diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis in 2018. Further controversy emerged in February when Norwegian media reported on her past friendship with Epstein. The reports detailed frequent contact between the two in the early 2010s, despite Epstein's previous conviction for soliciting a minor. Mette-Marit subsequently said she had been "manipulated and deceived". "When you get married, it's for better or for worse," Haakon remarked in March during a televised interview the gave about the Epstein revelations. The succession comes at a difficult moment for Norway's royal family. The controversies have damaged its public image and reduced support for the monarchy, although the institution remains broadly popular. Despite the turmoil, Haakon has received praise for maintaining a calm public presence. Haakon has nevertheless "shown himself to be a man who remains steady in the face of a storm, and that is a very valuable quality in a monarch," Caroline Vagle, a reporter for magazine Se og Hor, told AFP. "He has also had the best teacher he could possibly have had in his father," she added. A poll conducted in March found that almost eight in 10 Norwegians believed Haakon would make a good king, suggesting that despite the controversies surrounding his family, the new monarch retains substantial public confidence.

King Haakon VIII takes Norway's throne as the monarchy faces family scandals, while his calm leadership and public support offer hope for stability

Who is Norway's new King Haakon VIII? A monarch taking charge amid royal turmoil

world

World, News on World, stories on World, articles on World, World stories at Wion, World news, World latest news

world news

Nepal-Tibet flood disaster: Death toll hits 586, over 2,400 missing as rescue effort faces fresh flood threat

Trump, self-proclaimed ‘peace president’, wages wars on multiple fronts

'Biggest oil deal': Trump says US gains control of 65 billion Venezuelan barrels

Meta's teen curfew becomes a template for regulators worldwide

Nvidia guides to $108 billion after a $96.2 billion quarter

Tech firms warn of AI cyberattack surge, seek early model access

The $120 billion Google-Marvell chip deal commits Google to nothing

Meta's headline settlement figure depends on rivals settling too

Judge rules Pentagon blacklisting of Anthropic was unlawful

Putin to take part in SCO summit, meet China's Xi, India's Modi

PM Modi begins big September diplomatic blitz, summits will test US decline

Watch: Russia conducts long-range mobile ICBM test, missile travels 6,700 km

Nepal floods: Satellite imagery shows riverside towns buried under debris

Quantum battlefield: The race to protect the digital kill chain

Gravitas: American eagle stokes trade war with Canada's goose

AI arms race: Is India ready for the battlefield of the future?

WATCH: Family on balcony of viral green house survives terrifying Nepal floods

The Verdict | The Donald Trump brand is everywhere. But is America better off?

Bishkek prepares for SCO summit as PM Modi set to join Eurasian leaders

US midterms: Companies close to Trump prepare for possible Democratic takeover

Mecca Pact: Why Pakistan may have emerged weaker in the conflict with India

Iran slams Trump, advises him to consult psychologists

Xi tightens grip on military: China removes top generals from key body

Ratcliffe’s 'secret' Moscow trip caught senior White House officials off guard