defense

May 14 (UPI) — A lard-covered obelisk is more than a slippery slope for U.S. Naval Academy plebes, who view it as a rite of passage that changes them into midshipmen.

Dozens of freshmen who are called “plebes” were tasked with climbing the 21-foot-tall Herndon Monument on Wednesday, with the mission being to replace a cap placed on top to mark the end of their first year at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

They accomplished the feat in 2 hours, 27 minutes and 31 seconds by using the kind of teamwork that is required to effectively operate vessels on the high seas like the U.S. Navy has done for almost 250 years, and as it today carries out missions on land and in the air, as well.

The annual climb is a 75-year tradition that started in 1950 and scales the monument to Commander William Lewis Herndon, who went down with his ship when a hurricane sank it in 1857.

The climb requires Naval Academy plebes to scale the obelisk after it has been covered with 200 pounds of lard, remove a “Dixie cup” placed on top and replace it with the hat of an upperclassman.

The Dixie cup is not a reference to the paper cup that often is used at water dispensers.

Instead, it is a reference to the “low-rolled brim, high-domed item constructed of canvas” cap that was created in 1886 and has represented the U.S. Navy throughout the 20th century and beyond.

The Dixie cup cap is featured in the iconic photo of a sailor kissing a nurse in New York City’s Times Square on Victory over Japan Day in 1945.

It also was featured in many classic films and was worn by the S.S. Minnow’s first mate Gilligan on television’s “Gilligan’s Island.”

Members of the Naval Academy’s class of 2028 successfully undertook the task of replacing the Dixie Cup with the upperclassman’s hat.

The 2028 class has about 1,187 plebes, who now are referred to as “midshipmen” upon their completion of the annual rite of passage.

In the aftermath of the armed insurgency that erupted in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in 1989, the valley fell into what Basharat Peer called ‘Curfewed Night’—a’ prolonged nightmare. Three decades later, New Delhi revoked Article 370, apparently to spur investment and deepen integration in the valley. Yet, for Kashmiris, the nightmare has not ended. The recent attack in Pahalgam, which led to Operation Sindoor, serves as an unmuted episode in Kashmir’s nightmare.

Decades ago, Kashmiris inscribed ‘Q.K.’ (Quit Kashmir) on courtyard walls, and slogans like ‘Go India Go,’ ‘Al-Umar,’ and ‘Taeju’ echoed through the valley. During a 2008 visit to KASHMIR, Arundhati Roy recorded hearing chants such as ‘Dhoodh maango ge, kheer dein ge; Kashmir maango ge, cheer dein ge’ (Ask for milk, we’ll give you dessert; ask for Kashmir, we’ll tear you apart). Today, those slogans have faded. Headlines now highlight G20 meetings and post-2019 booms in tourism and investment. This raises a critical question: has the revocation of Article 370 erased half a century of resentment in just six years?

The Pahalgam attack challenges the narrative of Modi’s prosperous ‘Naya Kashmir.’ According to the managing editor of Kashmir Times, ‘normalcy has proved to be a mirage in Kashmir.’ After India’s 2019 clampdown silenced most headlines, KASHMIR faded away from the memory of the international community. But silence does not translate into peace. Within a month of the revocation of Article 370, more than 200 politicians, 100 community leaders, and many outspoken activists were imprisoned. There has been a systemic institutionalization of information control. Journalists and human rights defenders have been harassed, detained, and accused of ‘terrorism’ for reporting gross human rights violations in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmiris witness collective punishment. The human cost is profound: in 2022, a Kashmiri man lost his overseas job, faced financial hardship, and struggled with legal burdens because his brother, a journalist, was arrested for sharing a protest video on Twitter (now X).

Farah Bashir recounts in her memoir that every Kashmiri lives with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) or is described as being possessed by a djinn—a traditional way of expressing mental anguish. During crackdowns, soldiers storm homes, ransack belongings, and scatter staples like rice and flour across the floor. These crackdowns often lead to food shortages and, at times, starvation. Reigniting collective trauma, Indian security forces launched a sweeping crackdown following the Pahalgam attack across the valley. Kashmiri students in Jammu and across northern Indian states have faced a wave of violence, threats, and communal slurs. Around 1,500 Kashmiris have been placed under preventive detention. India’s response to the attack shows how the country continues to conflate security with collective punishment. For those born after 1990, fear and resistance have become normalized elements of daily life. Repression in Occupied Kashmir has migrated from open violence to more invisible, psychological forms of control. 

In 2021, the Russell Tribunal on Kashmir warned that the Valley had reached the brink of genocide, fueled by Hindutva-driven policies carried out with impunity. Yet, this reality remains largely invisible in both Indian and global media. The absence of independent reporting suggests that media bias is deeply entrenched, systematically sidelining accounts of state violence. It was only after the mass casualties of Indian tourists in the Pahalgam attack that global attention briefly redirected towards the situation in Occupied Kashmir, highlighting how the region’s persistent human rights crisis otherwise remains marginalized in international discourse.

Only a few Indian analysts have criticized their mainstream media for perpetuating the illusion of normalcy in the disputed territory, arguing that this portrayal masks the enduring reality of Jammu and Kashmir as a war zone. Thousands of Indian troops are omnipresent, and every Friday, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is placed under house arrest to prevent him from leading prayers. 

Since 2019, normalcy in Kashmir has been manufactured through repression, control of the media, and projection of economic development. As long as dissent is crushed, histories erased, and trauma left unhealed, Occupied Kashmir will remain a conflict unresolved—silenced, perhaps, but far from settled. 

The military confrontation India and Pakistan has ended. At least for now, there is no noticeable escalation, exchanges of fire, or use of artillery on the line of contact. The day before, President Donald Trump announced that India and Pakistan, with the mediation of the United States, had agreed to an immediate and complete ceasefire. “After a long night of negotiations, mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a complete and immediate ceasefire,” Donald Trump said. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had recently called both Pakistani and Indian officials, offering to mediate the talks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the British Foreign Secretary played a key role in reaching the ceasefire agreement. Secretary Rubio thanked the two prime ministers, Narendra Modi and Shahbaz Sharif, for their “statesmanship in choosing the path of peace.” According to the Indian Foreign Ministry, Pakistan’s chief of military operations called his Indian counterpart, and both sides agreed to cease air, land, and sea strikes.

However, it appears that the parties did not plan for a large-scale armed conflict. Donald Trump’s statements look more like an attempt to portray himself as a peacemaker. And Pakistan’s statements about the role of the British show London’s obvious support for Islamabad. Both India and Pakistan are huge countries. However, the balance of power in the region has been established and will be entrenched for many years to come. And within this balance, India is the largest, richest, and most powerful regional hegemon in South Asia. India is six times larger, its population is approaching 1.5 billion people (first place in the world), while Pakistan’s population is about 250 million (fifth place). India is significantly richer: by GDP – about ten times (over 17 trillion dollars, or 8.5% of world GDP versus 1.67 trillion, or 0.8% of world GDP for Pakistan); by GDP per capita – almost twice (12 thousand dollars versus 7 thousand for Pakistan).

India is among the top five world leaders in military spending, with more than 86 billion dollars in 2024, while for Pakistan, this figure is about 10 billion dollars. Moreover, India is only increasing its military spending, while for Pakistan, it fell by 5% in 2024. India and Pakistan have fought three times: in 1947-1948, 1965, and 1971. All these conflicts ended in victories for Delhi. India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, an operation called “Smiling Buddha”. Pakistan received nuclear weapons in 1998. India, under Narendra Modi rule, given its increased potential, strives to play a global role and claims the role of a great power. Pakistan is a power on a completely different scale.

However, nuclear weapons have not stopped the conflict between the two neighboring countries. But it is precisely they that have so far prevented a major war from breaking out in the region. Thus, it is possible to predict with a high degree of probability the results of any large-scale conflict between the two countries. At the same time, if the presence of nuclear weapons and different levels of economic development and military potential reduce the possibility of a large-scale conflict, tension on the border is quite possible and even inevitable.

One of the signs of the likelihood of a protracted confrontation is the extremely militant mood in the societies of both countries. “Justice strikes,” declared an editorial in one of India’s leading English-language newspapers, praising the “sharp” and “resolute” response to the killing of 26 Hindus. On May 10, the conflict between the two nuclear powers reached a new level when the Pakistani government announced a major military operation against India. Explosions were heard in northern India on the evening of May 9. India then launched missile strikes on three Pakistani air bases near Rawalpindi – Nur Khan, Murid and Shorkot. As the conflict escalated along the Line of Contact in Jammu and Kashmir and on the Indo-Pakistan international border, Pakistan’s armed forces made heavy use of some 300-400 drones, manufactured and supplied by Turkey. Of the nearly 400 drones sent by Pakistan, “Indian armed forces shot down a few of these drones through kinetic and non-kinetic means,” the government said. Initial evidence from the drone debris indicates that they were from Turkey’s Asisguard Songar. Turkey did not@ condemn the terror attack on civilians in Jammu and Kashmir or offer condolences to the families of Hindu tourists killed by the terrorists, and has fully supported Pakistan.

The growing alliance between Turkey and Pakistan could become a major factor in the regional balance. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed gratitude to Turkey for its “unwavering support” for Kashmir. Immediately after the Pahalgam attack, Turkey reportedly sent a huge amount of military equipment to Pakistan to help Islamabad stockpile against any Indian action. Six Turkish warplanes were reported to have arrived in Pakistan, allegedly carrying Turkish-made weapons and military equipment – ​​reports that were denied by Ankara. Turkey could not deny the presence of its C-130 warplane, as it was detected by global air surveillance systems, but denied that any weapons had been sent.

On May 7, India launched a military operation called Operation Sindoor against, as Delhi said, “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan in response to the attack. Pakistan responded by striking targets in India and claims to have shot down several Indian fighter jets. On April 22, Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists killed 26 Hindu tourists in the town of Pahalgam, in the Indian-administered region of Jammu and Kashmir. India called its military operation Operation Sindoor, a word referring to the red powder that married Hindu women traditionally apply to their faces. The name refers to the women who were left widowed after the Pahalgam attack.

SEOUL, May 14 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised combined tactical drills of special operations forces and stressed “full preparations for war,” state media reported Wednesday.

Kim watched tactical drill demonstrations and a joint fire strike demonstration by tank units at an undisclosed location on Tuesday, Korean Central News Agency reported.

“Making full preparations for war is the most crucial task,” Kim said, according to KCNA.

The North’s combat training has evolved “in keeping with the developing patterns and changing trend of modern warfare, strengthening the integral system of organizing, judging and reviewing training, and putting main stress on the actual war drills,” he said.

North Korean troops have gained real-world combat experience on the battlefield in Russia, where they have been sent to aid Moscow in its war against Ukraine.

Pyongyang has deployed around 15,000 troops to Russia, Seoul’s spy agency said recently. Some 600 of the soldiers have been killed and another 4,100 injured, the National Intelligence Service told lawmakers in a briefing on April 30.

North Korea acknowledged sending the troops for the first time last month, claiming they helped recapture lost territory in Kursk Province from Ukrainian forces.

“Our involvement in the war was justifiable,” Kim said during a visit to the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang on Friday in honor of Moscow’s Victory Day holiday.

“If [Ukraine] had not committed a heinous crime of encroaching upon the Russian territory, the invaders could have avoided the fate of becoming dead souls, hit by our swords and spears,” he said, according to a KCNA report.

In addition to troops, Seoul and Washington accuse North Korea of supplying artillery and missiles to Russia. A launch of short-range ballistic missiles and long-range artillery last week may have been a test of weapons systems meant for export to Russia, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

In exchange, North Korea is believed to be receiving much-needed financial support and advanced military technology for its own weapons programs.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon warned that North Korea may have up to 50 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads by 2035.

“North Korea has successfully tested ballistic missiles with sufficient range to reach the entire Homeland,” the Defense Intelligence Agency said in a report on current and future missile threats to the United States.

The agency defined an ICBM as “a ground-based missile with a range exceeding 5,500 km (3,417 miles) that flies on a ballistic trajectory and is typically armed with a nuclear warhead or warheads.”

Pyongyang is projected to increase its arsenal to 50 ICBMs from its current inventory of 10 or fewer, the DIA report said. China, Russia and Iran were also included in the threat assessment.

May 14 (UPI) — The United States has imposed additional Iran-related sanctions, as the Trump administration negotiates with Tehran on a new nuclear weapons deal.

The sanctions announced Tuesday by the U.S. Treasury target an Iranian oil smuggling network the Trump administration accuses of generating billions of dollars for the Tehran regime’s military and proxy forces.

Fifteen front companies, buyers and facilitators in Hong Kong, mainland China, the Seychelles and Singapore were hit by the punitive measures, along with 52-year-old Iranian national Mohammad Khorasani Niasari and two shipping vessels.

The secondary sanctions were levied due to their links to Sepehr Energy Jahan Nama Pars Company, which the previous Biden administration blacklisted in November 2023 for overseeing the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff’s network of front companies that it uses to sell commodities, including oil, internationally — funds that are used to further Iran’s weapons and nuclear programs and other destabilizing activities.

According to Treasury officials Sepehr Energy obfuscates the origin of these oil shipments through a series of deals involving between multiple front companies it owns. Some of the entities that were blacklisted Tuesday were established in China and Hong Kong.

Among the tactics deployed to conceal the oil’s Iranian origin is the use of ship-to-ship transfers at sea before the cargo reaches China. Once in the country, Sepehr Energy relies on complicit local agencies willing to aid their sanctioned sales.

Khorasani is a financial inspector for Sepehr Energy and its affiliates and was sanctioned Tuesday for helping to manage the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff’s transactions.

“As long as Iran devotes its illicit revenues to funding attacks on the United States and our allies, supporting terrorism around the world and pursuing other destabilizing actions, we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to hold the regime accountable,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

The sanctions are the latest the Trump administration has imposed since early February when President Donald Trump resumed his so-called maximum pressure policy from his first term — an effort that failed to coerce Iran into returning to the negotiating table for a new nuclear weapons deal.

During his first term in office, Trump imposed sanctions against Iran and unilaterally withdrew the United States from a landmark Obama-era multinational nuclear accord aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump applied his maximum pressure campaign of sanctions and political pressure to force Tehran to negotiate a new deal he believed would be better. Instead, the Middle Eastern country ignored its obligations under the accord and escalated its nuclear weapons program to the point where the U.S. government estimates Iran could need as little as a week to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear bomb.

However, talks about a new nuclear deal between the two countries have resumed during the Trump’s second term, with State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott telling reporters in at a Washington press conference on Tuesday that the negotiations “continue to show progress.”

There have been four rounds of informal talks with the fifth round yet to be scheduled.

Trump, speaking in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, called on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and accept “a much better path toward a far better and more hopeful future” or expect consequences. The United States under administration of both Democrats and Republicans have said they will not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

“I want to make a deal with Iran,” Trump said. “This is an offer that will not last forever. The time is right now to choose. We don’t have a lot of time to wait.”

The Trump administration is demanding that Iran discontinue its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its facilities. Iran has said it will not compromise on its enrichment capabilities.

On Monday, after the United States blacklisted three Iranians and a related technology firm involved in nuclear weapons research, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanchi suggested there was a possibility of negotiating on its enrichment allotments.

For a limited period of time, we can accept a series of restrictions on the level and volume of enrichment,” he said, state-run Press TV reported.

“We have not yet gone into details about the level and volume of enrichment.”

According to the Treasury, since Trump announced the resumption of his maximum pressure campaign, the United States has sanctioned 253 individuals, entities and vessels related to Iran and its proxies.

At midnight on 6th April 2025, Indian forces launched attacks on multiple locations in Pakistan, including Shakargarh, Sialkot, Muridke, Bahawalpur, Kotli, and the Muzaffarabad area of Punjab and the Pakistani part of Kashmir, using standoff precision-guided munitions. The attacks occurred in the Muslims’ religious places, hydropower infrastructure, and commercial air routes, violating international law and human norms alike, and so far 26 civilian deaths have been reported. India has also challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and violated the international border in the darkness of night. India and Pakistan are the archrival two nuclear weapons states of the South Asia region. However, India’s attack indicates the aggressive posture of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s regime to target the unarmed civilian and innocent children. This is not merely a border skirmish; it is a calculated escalation with far-reaching strategic consequences for the entire South Asian region. Various media reports highlighted that in retaliation and for the defense of the state, Pakistani armed forces also hit all of the Indian fighter jets and drones from their own territory with PL-15.

The tension between India and Pakistan escalated when, on April 22, 2025, terror shattered the peace of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in Indian-administered Kashmir (IOJK) known as “Mini Switzerland.” Armed gunmen opened fire on civilians, resulting in 26 casualties. Instead of allowing a transparent investigation to determine the perpetrators, India hastily blamed Pakistan, offering no concrete evidence to back its claim. It was India’s security failure; before putting the finger on Pakistan, India needs to have a neutral investigation of the incident and should provide evidence of linkages of the Pakistani state to these attacks. However, India’s recent attack on Pakistan’s territory and targeting civilian population indicates that the Pahalgam attack was an orchestrated provocation. India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, launched this attack not in defense but for political theater—under the cover of night, on civilian infrastructure, without evidence or provocation. This isn’t an act of strength—it’s a display of desperation. And if this escalates, it won’t just make headlines; it will be etched in history as the moment ego led us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.

Pakistan has concluded the meeting of the National Security Committee under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and it has been decided that in consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard. India’s missile strikes inside Pakistan were reckless, unprovoked, and a clear violation of international law. India’s recent attacks have put the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region in serious jeopardy. At the moment the strikes occurred, 57 international commercial flights, including those operated by major Gulf and European airlines, were either within or approaching Pakistani airspace. This reckless action posed a direct danger to civilian air traffic, placing thousands of innocent lives at risk. It goes beyond a hostile move against Pakistan; it represents a clear threat to global peace and security. By heightening tensions in a nuclear-armed region, India has shown a disturbing disregard for international laws, aviation safety, and the value of human life.

By targeting civilian airspace and deliberately provoking conflict, India has revealed itself as a reckless and irresponsible actor on the global stage. Its actions undermine regional stability and pose a serious threat to international peace. The international community must look beyond India’s carefully crafted narratives and recognize the true source of aggression. This is a defining moment for global powers to uphold justice, demand accountability, and prevent further escalation. Without decisive diplomatic intervention, India’s adventurism could plunge South Asia and potentially the wider world into a dangerous and prolonged conflict. Several nations have already voiced serious concerns; Azerbaijan condemned the military strikes on Pakistan and urged restraint and dialogue; Turkey, through Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, expressed strong solidarity with Pakistan against India’s unprovoked aggression; and China described India’s military action as “regrettable,” calling for de-escalation and expressing concern over the unfolding situation.

To prevent the escalation between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, the international community must play a role to bring them to the negotiation table. Both states need an immediate ceasefire to avoid civilian deaths and triggering nuclear risks; they must also halt the cross-border military activities and refrain from provocative statements. There is also an immediate need to establish a neutral and impartial investigation mechanism under the supervision of the United Nations to determine the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. There must be restoration of military-to-military and diplomatic communication channels for conflict management. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the UN Secretary-General must actively intervene by appointing a special envoy to mediate between the two sides. Key international actors such as China, Turkey, the United States, the EU, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should support de-escalation through diplomatic engagement and pressure for dialogue. Track two diplomacy is vital in the time of crisis and addresses the root cause of the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of Kashmiri people by granting them the right of self-determination.

Last but not least, both states need to realize that war is not the only solution, but it is a diplomatic failure to de-escalate the tension in the South Asian region. In a nuclearized region of South Asia, its consequences would be catastrophic not only for India and Pakistan but also for regional and global security. The world cannot afford another conflict zone. The international community must rise to the occasion, play an impartial mediating role, and help both nations choose peace over provocation and dialogue over destruction.

May 11 (UPI) — A fourth round of nuclear talks between the United States and Oman have produced encouraging results for the Trump administration, a senior official told reporters Sunday.

White House envoy Steve Witkoff met with Iranian foreign ministries Accas Araghchi for three hours Sunday in Muscat. The talks were mediated by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr al-Busaidi.

“The discussions were again both direct and indirect,” Axios reported the official said.

The news comes just days before President Donald Trump‘s scheduled trip to the Middle East this week.

The two sides are reportedly working through the technical elements of a potential nuclear pact.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the talks as “difficult but useful.” Both sides were guarded in their comments.

“We are encouraged by today’s outcome and look forward to our next meeting, which will happen in the near future,” the United States official said.

El-Busaidi said on X that the two sides discussed “useful and original ideas reflecting a shared wish to reach an honorable agreement.”

There is some question over how enforceable the current deal being discussed would be as Araghachi said before the meeting that civilian enrichment of uranium would not be subject to the new rules.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on Iran to import enriched uranium instead, but Iranian officials pushed back and said the country’s investment in creating it runs deep.

“Enrichment is one of the achievements and honors of the Iranian nation,” Araghchi has said. “We have paid a heavy price for enrichment. The blood of out nuclear scientists has been spilled for this achievement.”

He was referring to Iranian scientists who have been killed during the course of the country’s enrichment program.

May 11 (UPI) — The Qatari Royal Family has planned to gift a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet to President Donald Trump to be used for Air Force One and for his own private use when his presidency ends, reports said Sunday.

News of the major gift was first reported by ABC News, citing anonymous sources, and later confirmed by The New York Times and NBC News. United Press International has reached out to Qatar’s Government Communications Office for confirmation.

The gift is expected to be formally announced when Trump visits Qatar next week, according to the reports. Trump toured the plane when it was parked at the West Palm Beach International Airport in February.

A Qatari representative, however, told Axios that while reports of Trump being gifted a jet were “inaccurate,” Qatar’s Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense are discussing the possible temporary use of an aircraft as Air Force One.

If it is gifted, the jet could become the most valuable gift ever from a foreign government to the United States, ABC News reported. Its $400 million estimated price tag surpasses the estimated $250,000 cost of constructing the Statue of Liberty — which was gifted to the United States from France.

But the expected acceptance of the gift by Trump raises questions of its legality, raising the possibility that the president could face scrutiny for bribery or violating the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Emoluments Clause prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts, payments or other benefits from foreign governments without the consent of Congress but there is debate as to whether it applies to elected officials. According to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, the interpretation of the clause has never been litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the White House reportedly expect accepting the gift to draw scrutiny and have drafted an analysis for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which concludes that it is legal for the U.S. Defense Department to accept the gift and then to later hand it over to Trump’s presidential library for his private use when he leaves office.

The Trump administration is looking to the precedent set by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in handling the ethical considerations of accepting a retired presidential aircraft.

The Reagan Library boasts a 90,000-square-foot exhibit hangar that permanently displays a Boeing VC-137C aircraft with the tail letters SAM 27000, which entered service as Air Force One under President Richard Nixon.

Though the plane was used by each president until George W. Bush, it is best known in relation to Reagan and was gifted to his library when it was decommissioned in 2001. Reagan died in 2004.

The difference between the use of the two gifts that could pose a challenge for Trump is that the Reagan Library immediately installed it for permanent display while Trump is reported to be planning to continue using it for personal travel.

Trump currently owns a Boeing 757 that dates to the early 1990s. The jet was originally operated by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen before Trump purchased it in 2011.

Two new Air Force One planes have been in the works since at least 2018 when the Air Force awarded a $3.9 billion contract for two modified Boeing 747-8 planes that were expected for delivery by 2024.

Trump told ABC News in 2019 that he wanted to change up the traditional baby blue and white pattern chosen by former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy in the 1960s to a new color scheme that resembled that of his private jet.

Boeing started modifying the first of the two aircraft in February 2020 and the second in June 2020. According to a 2022 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the company had completed major structural modifications on the first aircraft and is now preparing it for wiring installations.

However, at the time, Boeing struggled to find workers to complete the modifications because of a “competitive labor market” and “lower-than-planned security clearance approval rates.” The Air Force later lowered security clearance standards to make it easier to find workers.

Last week, Defense One reported that Boeing has told the Air Force it can deliver the new jets by 2027 if the government loosens some requirements.

May 11 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said he is willing to meet face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin following a demand by the Trump administration for the two leaders to meet in an effort to end the war between the two nations.

“There is no point in prolonging the killings,” Zelensky wrote on X. “And I will be waiting for Putin in Turkiye on Thursday. Personally.”

Should the meeting occur, it would be the first time that the two leaders have talked face-to-face since Russia invaded Ukraine in the port city of Mariupol more than three years ago.

President Donald Trump called for an unconditional 30-day cease-fire between the warring nations and threatened sanctions if the directive is “not respected.”

Zelensky spoke with Trump and leaders of several NATO nations Saturday, a call and meeting during which the Ukrainian leader said he is ready to begin a cease-fire on Monday, and added that he is ready to begin direct talks with Putin if the cease-fire goes into effect.

Putin responded that he is ready to begin direct talks with Ukraine on Thursday, although the Russian leader did not indicate being ready to accept terms of the cease-fire proposal.

Zelensky has said he will be in Turkey Thursday regardless of whether Russia enters the cease-fire on Monday.

May 10 (UPI) — The Pentagon has ordered senior military leaders to pull and review library books from educational institutions that address diversity, anti-racism or gender issues.

The Department of Defense on Friday issued a six-page memo “to identify library materials that may conflict with our core mission. The Department’s instructional materials should be mission-focused and not promote divisive concepts and gender ideology.”

“The Secretary has been clear: We are building a colorblind, merit-based culture that promotes and rewards individual initiative, excellence, and hard work,” Pentagon senior advisor Sean Parnell said in a statement.

Military educational institutions “are focused on the core warfighting mission of the Department while upholding the principles of intellectual freedom necessary to educate military leaders ready to fight and win the Nation’s wars,” the memo reads.

It was signed by Timothy Dill, the Pentagon’s under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

Military schools, which include War Colleges and military service academies, have been told to identify this content no later than May 21.

The search will include 20 Library of Congress subject headings, including as affirmative action, anti-racism, critical race theory, discrimination, diversity in the workplace, gender affirming care, gender dysphoria, gender expression, transgender people, White privilege.

Then, experts in the fields of education will decide by June which books to remove from shelves, according to the memo.

“All reviews will use a ‘viewpoint-neutral’ approach, using definitions laid out in Executive Order 14168, ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,’ and Executive Order 13950, ‘Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,'” the memo reads.

In early April, the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., removed 381 books from its library before a visit by Secretary Pete Hegseth. Officials had reviewed nearly 900 books.

Removed were books honoring Jewish female academy graduates, women who served during the Civil War and lessons discussing the Tuskegee Airmen‘s and Women’s Air Force Service Pilots’ services during World War II.

The libraries at Army West Point in New York and Air Force in Colorado were also told to find books related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

In March, an article about baseball icon Jackie Robinson‘s military history was “mistakenly removed” from the Department of Defense website due to search terms used to scrub diversity, equity and inclusion terms, officials said.

May 10 (UPI) — European leaders from Britain, France, Germany and Poland joined Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on Saturday in urging Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept a 30-day unconditional ceasefire or face more sanctions.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merez traveled in a train together to Kiev, and Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk was aboard another train, the Guardian reported.

Zelensky said they “spoken to President Trump together. We agreed on our common view of our further actions.”

“The cease-fire must be comprehensive: in the air, at sea and on land,” Zelenskyy told reporters. “It is quite possible to monitor the cease-fire in coordination with the United States of America, this is really realistic. The cease-fire should last for 30 days to give diplomacy a real chance.”

Zelensky said he was “grateful to President Trump” and wants the cease-fire to begin Monday in a post on X.

“We share a common view: an immediate, full, and unconditional ceasefire is needed for at least 30 days,” Zelensky posted on X. “We propose it begin on Monday, May 12. We are waiting for Russia’s response.

“This proposal has been on the table since the talks in Saudi Arabia, when it was first put forward by the United States. Once the ceasefire begins, there will be the best moment for diplomacy. Ukraine is ready for meetings and negotiations in any format.”

The proposal was dismissed by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Saturday, who said via the Russian news agency Interfax that he hears “many contradictory statements from Europe. They are generally confrontational in nature rather than aimed at trying to revive our relations. Nothing more.”

Peskov earlier said Russia would only agree to a cease-fire if U.S. and European ends arms supplies to Ukraine.

“Otherwise, it will be an advantage for Ukraine,” he told ABC News. “Ukraine will continue their total mobilization, bringing new troops to frontline,”

Putin also wants Ukraine to surrender large parts of the eastern and southern regions of its country that Russian forces haven’t seized.

“Macron, Merz, Starmer and Tusk were supposed to discuss peace in Kyiv. Instead, they are blurting out threats against Russia,” Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and current deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, the BBC reported.

The four European leaders made their first joint appearance in a virtual meeting of the “coalition of the willing,” which includes mostly European nations. They said they would assist Ukraine if there is a durable cease-fire in the now 3-year long war, which started when Russia attacked it’s neighbor on Feb. 24, 2022.

Joining in the video link were Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Macron said “some 20 countries” are in “unanimity” about the cease-fire, referring to Ukraine as “the beating heart of Europe.” He said once the cease-fire is agreed, there are a “number of steps we’re working on.” That includes strengthening Ukraine’s army.

“All of us here, together with the U.S., are calling Putin out. If he’s serious about peace then he has a chance to show it now,” Starmer said.

Merz, who assumed office on Tuesday, said Saturday that if Russia rejects the ceasefire proposal, Europe will keep defending Ukraine.

Macron documented the leaders’ journey by train on Instagram, including traveling through Poland, and posted a video of the group with Zelensky and Ukrainian first lady Olena Zelenska visiting a memorial to the war dead in central Kyiv. Macron and Starmer also joined Zelensky in a visit to the Saint Sophia Cathedral.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said it was “symbolic” to meet in Kyiv and showed the “the strength of our unity.”

Putin had declared a three-day cease-fire, which ended on Saturday, although Russia had not followed by it — similar to what happened during a one-day Easter truce Russia implemented last month.

Ukraine and Russia traded accusations of violating cease-fire that ceasefire, as well, with Zelensky accusing Russia of nearly 3,000 violations and Russia claiming Ukraine violated the halt more than 1,000 times.

May 10 (UPI) — India and Pakistan on Saturday agreed to an “immediate cease-fire,” the neighboring Asian nations and U.S. President Donald Trump announced.

The Asian nations, both of which are nuclear powers, paused fighting at 5:00 p.m. local time after weeks of increasing skirmishes that have included airstrikes from both sides, including early on Saturday.

Once fighting stopped, Pakistan fully reopened its airspace for all flights across the country after being closed for several hours, CNN reported.

“After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE,” Trump posted on Truth Social before 8:00 a.m. EST. “Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The nations’ leaders also confirmed the cease-fire.

“Pakistan has always strived for peace and security in the region, without compromising on its sovereignty and territorial integrity!” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar wrote on X.

Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, also posted on X, saying that “India and Pakistan have today worked out an understanding on stoppage of firing and military action. India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so.”

Both sides agreed to talk again Monday.

Britain also played a key role in the talks, the BBC reported. Also involved were Saudi Arabia and Turkey, CNN reported.

“I urge both parties to sustain this. De-escalation is in everybody’s interest,” British Foreign Secretary David Lammy in a post on X.

A Pakistani government source told CNN that the United States played a crucial role in the talks, which occurred during the last 48 hours and included U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.

In a statement, Rubio said the nations have agreed “to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.”

“We commend Prime Ministers Modi and Sharif on their wisdom, prudence and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace,” Rubio added.

On April 22, tourists were massacred in Indian-controlled Kashmir. At least 25 Indian citizens and one Nepali national died in an area only accessible by foot or on horseback

India blamed Pakistan, launched “Operation Sindoor” and targeting nine locations within Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Islamabad has denied involvement in the massacre.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said that retaliatory strikes Saturday against India specifically targeted military infrastructure in New Delhi that he said was used to launch earlier attacks in “a powerful and well-coordinated response,” according to CNN.

Eleven people were killed, including a child, and 56 others injured by India along the Line of Control, Pakistan said.

“Last night, intense shelling from the Indian side took place at more than five different locations along the Line of Control,” Pir Mazhar Saeed Shah said.

Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan each control parts of Kashmir, fighting wars over the territory in 1965, 1971 and 1999.

In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Indian shelling has damaged 235 homes, including 29 completely destroyed, Pakistan’s Shah said.

A shopkeeper in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, earlier told a BBC reporter that they are “not really worried about my safety, but I don’t know how this can end. War is bad for people in both countries, no matter their religion.”

China, which borders the two nations, also weighed in on the fighting.

“China is closely following the current situation between India and Pakistan and is deeply concerned about the escalation,” a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

“We strongly urge both sides to prioritize the broader interest of peace and stability, remain calm and restrained, and return to the path of political resolution through peaceful means,” the statement said

The International Monetary Fund announced that it will give an approximately $1 billion loan to Pakistan for relief, which is part of a $7 billion bailout Pakistan secured from the IMF in September 2024.

In the world of politics, there is always that seductive lie: “Security comes from the barrel of a gun.” It’s a lie that Benjamin Netanyahu has peddled for years under the guise of “defending Israel’s existence.” But perhaps the turning point in this game is today—when Netanyahu, Israel’s ever-hawkish prime minister, has not only failed to drag the weak and indecisive Joe Biden into a war with Iran but is now trying to pull Donald Trump—who turned “America First” into the banner of his foreign policy—into the same trap. Will Trump fall for it? And if he does, what will remain of his image as an independent and patriotic leader?

Even Biden Says “No”

Biden’s foreign policy has often been cold, cautious, and at times indecisive. In response to the Gaza war, attacks on U.S. facilities, and Iran’s regional maneuvers, Biden has shown half-hearted and sometimes nervous—but ultimately neutral—reactions. From Netanyahu’s perspective, Biden seemed like an “easy target”: an old and hesitant president who could perhaps be pushed with minimal effort into a military confrontation with Iran. But even Biden resisted Netanyahu’s war-driven agenda. He stood against Israel’s demand for a direct and extensive U.S. response to Iran’s proxy attacks and tried to prevent the conflict from spiraling into full-scale war. As a result, Netanyahu repeatedly had to declare on his own that if necessary, Israel would fight Iran alone. And now, in this new chapter, Netanyahu is eyeing an old option: Donald Trump.

Trump has repeatedly shown his unwillingness to drag America into endless Middle Eastern wars. While he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and applied maximum pressure, he refrained from military retaliation during critical moments—like when an American drone was shot down over the Persian Gulf in 2019. The reason was clear: Trump genuinely believes that wars in the Middle East are costly for the American people and bring no tangible benefits to the citizens of Indiana, Pennsylvania, or Ohio. This view is especially popular among the white middle class—the heart of Trump’s voter base. For these voters, Trump was not a “war hero” but a leader of “internal rebuilding”—someone who was supposed to build walls on the Mexican border, not in the Persian Gulf.

Netanyahu’s Grand Trap: A War in Trump’s Name, A Defeat for Trump

Under these circumstances, Netanyahu’s push to entangle Trump in a conflict with Iran is not only a repetition of a dangerous pattern but also a direct threat to the image Trump has cultivated: an independent, anti-militarist leader serving the American people’s interests. If Trump gets pulled into such a war, how would he be any different from the neoconservatives of the 2000s who dragged Americans into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan? Imagine images of dead U.S. soldiers, skyrocketing military costs, severe oil price fluctuations, rising inflation, and, most importantly, the collapse of the “America First” doctrine. This is exactly the scenario that Democrats—and some traditional Republicans—are waiting for to derail Trump’s momentum.

What Netanyahu Wants: Power Without Cost, War With Someone Else’s Signature

What Netanyahu wants is clear: he wants the U.S. to bear the political, military, and human costs of a war with Iran, while Israel plays the role of the “victimized observer.” Time and again, Netanyahu has shown he has no problem with war—as long as others fight it for him. From George W. Bush to Biden, from Obama to Trump, Netanyahu has always tried to align Washington with Tel Aviv’s objectives. But here’s the issue: if Trump accepts this game, he will no longer be the leader who sets his own rules. He’ll be just another pawn in the regional chessboard designed by Israel.

Conclusion: Netanyahu’s War, Trump’s Downfall?

Netanyahu fears even a symbolic agreement between Trump and Iran—an agreement that could eliminate the constant threat of war from the Middle East equation and diminish Israel’s role as the “frontline in the battle against evil.” But the real danger is not for Netanyahu—it’s for Trump himself. If Trump yields to Netanyahu’s pressure and enters into conflict, his political legacy will suffer a devastating blow. In fact, a war with Iran is precisely what Trump’s opponents need to destroy his image as an independent, America-centered, and rational leader. If even a passive Biden didn’t fall for this trap, perhaps Trump’s greatest leadership test is this: saying no to a temptation that appears powerful—but in reality, destroys his very identity.

At first glance, after three years of the war and economic sanctions, Russia’s economy appears remarkably stable. Output is rising, unemployment is at a record low, and the Kremlin insists the country is thriving despite unprecedented Western sanctions. Russian Prime Minister Mishustin boasts of surging industrial growth and strong state finances. President Putin recently claimed that Russia has already overtaken Japan and Germany in terms of economy. But behind this facade lies a brittle system—one that depends on unsustainable trade-offs, devalues its labor force, and ultimately shifts the burden of war onto ordinary citizens.

What the official figures don’t show is a country running two separate economies under one flag: one that supports state interests, particularly the war in Ukraine, and another that forces the public to absorb the costs. The result is what some analysts describe as a form of “Potemkin prosperity”—a” structure that looks solid from afar but cracks under closer inspection.

While GDP growth and low unemployment are often cited as signs of resilience, these indicators lose meaning in the context of Russia’s deeply imbalanced political economy.

Russia does not operate as a capitalist democracy with independent markets and institutions but as a neo-feudal system—a vertical structure where power, not property rights, governs economic life. In this model, oligarchs function like medieval vassals: their wealth is conditional on personal loyalty to the sovereign. They do not truly own their assets in a legal or institutional sense; instead, they are allowed to “hold” factories, media empires, or natural resources in exchange for political compliance. Their fiefdoms can be expanded, shrunk, or confiscated entirely depending on the will of the Kremlin.

This explains why targeted sanctions on billionaires often appear ineffective: these individuals were never autonomous power centers to begin with. They are extensions of the regime, not counterweights to it. This neo-feudal arrangement forms the political foundation for Russia’s distinctive economic structure.

Two Economies in One Country

Within this neo-feudal framework, Russia’s modern economic design is deceptively simple but strategically cunning. It rests on three pillars: government funding for the industrial oligarchy, debt-financed consumption for ordinary citizens, and export revenues in hard currency to finance both.

The state bankrolls production in priority sectors, including defense, metallurgy, and heavy industry, providing contracts and subsidies to a small circle of these vassal conglomerates. Meanwhile, ordinary Russians finance their personal consumption largely through debt, buying everything from washing machines to imported food with loans. This structure depends critically on a steady flow of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, euros, and yuan, generated by the export of oil, gas, and commodities.

As long as the state earns enough hard currency, it can pay for industrial imports and subsidize essential goods. But when those revenues fall, such as during sanctions or price caps, the system shifts pressure onto citizens—much as medieval peasants absorbed the cost of warfare through higher taxes and conscription. The government cuts spending on consumption, devalues the ruble, and lets inflation erode household savings. In essence, the public becomes the shock absorber.

This arrangement is not accidental. After years of experimenting with centrally planned prices and consumer subsidies during the Soviet era, Russian leaders learned that trying to control everything invites blame when things go wrong. The modern system is designed to keep political liability low while maximizing resource extraction from both natural wealth and human labor.

Wartime Growth Without Welfare

The war in Ukraine has added fuel to Russia’s state-centered growth model. Military spending has surged. The government orders tanks, missiles, and uniforms in bulk, pouring rubles into defense enterprises. In turn, output rises. According to Prime Minister Mishustin, GDP in 2024 was 4.1%. Manufacturing, especially electronics, optics, and metallurgy, grew at unprecedented rates. By official measures, Russia is not just surviving sanctions—it’s outpacing many European economies.

But this is growth without welfare. Most of the new production serves military needs, not consumer demand. Civilian goods are not increasing in availability or affordability. As the Central Bank of Russia pointed out, the economy’s growth has “nothing to do with consumption.” Instead, state orders for war material have pushed total output beyond sustainable capacity, creating bottlenecks and stoking inflation.

History offers a chilling parallel. In 1944, as the Allies bombed Germany into rubble, the Nazi regime recorded its highest-ever GDP. Why? Because war production soared—even as the country was collapsing. The same was true in the USSR during WWII. In both cases, GDP was inflated by weapons output that did nothing to improve civilian life.

Russia today may be repeating this pattern: a nation where GDP grows while hospitals languish, shelves thin out, and prices climb. As one analyst put it, “Measuring the achievements of a country waging war by its GDP is like measuring the well-being of a heroin addict by how much he spends on drugs.”

The Built-In Devaluation of Labor

Perhaps the most painful price of Russia’s war economy is paid not in rubles but in purchasing power. In 2023, the ruble fell to become one of the world’s most volatile currencies. Against the dollar, it lost over 50% in value year-on-year. Imports soared in cost, and everyday goods became less affordable for most Russians.

But for the country’s financial elites, the ruble collapse was a windfall. Banks earned hundreds of billions of rubles in profits from the currency’s devaluation. In just six months, they pocketed more than half a trillion rubles from foreign exchange gains.

Why is this tolerated—or even welcomed—by the authorities? Because inflation and devaluation serve a hidden function: they reduce real wages without politically explosive reforms. Each time Russians begin to earn more in nominal terms, a crisis—often involving currency depreciation—wipes out those gains.

In Russia, inflation isn’t an accident. It’s a mechanism. Every time the cost of labor rises in Russia, the government finds a way to reduce it—or even erase it altogether.

Ordinary Russians understand this intuitively. Many take out loans and buy durable goods when times are relatively good, assuming that another devaluation will soon follow. In a tragic twist, this borrowing spree can itself fuel inflation, reinforcing the very cycle that destroys real wages.

An Economy Bleeding Talent

While unemployment in Russia has hit record lows—2.4% in January 2025—this statistic is deeply misleading. The war effort has drained the civilian workforce, pulling hundreds of thousands of men into the army and driving many professionals to emigrate. Construction companies, factories, and service providers report severe labor shortages. Employers are raising wages to attract workers, but productivity has not kept pace.

This wage inflation is not a sign of economic health; it’s a sign of distortion. The state’s defense sector offers high pay and job security, siphoning talent from the private economy. And when bonuses aren’t enough, the state resorts to mobilization. But even military industries could soon feel the pinch, with high military losses demanding more people, leaving fewer to produce goods.

The Oligarchs Get Richer

For Russia’s billionaire class, war has brought not ruin but renewal. According to Forbes, the number of Russian billionaires increased from 110 to 125 people over the year. – the biggest surge in over a decade. Amazingly, those under Western sanctions fared better than those who weren’t. Of sanctioned oligarchs, 40% grew their fortunes during wartime, while most of the unsanctioned saw their wealth decline.

This explosion of elite wealth is no accident. It is tied to state contracts, import substitution, and the takeover of Western corporate assets. In a system where economic opportunity is granted through loyalty, sanctions have ironically concentrated wealth even more tightly around the Kremlin.

What many in the West fail to grasp is this: all Russian oligarchs should be sanctioned—not because they are independent economic actors, but precisely because they are not. In Russia’s neo-feudal system, their wealth is not the result of market competition but of loyalty. Every untargeted oligarch remains a potential conduit of regime financing and strategic influence. Sanctioning only a subset creates exploitable gaps.

Echoes of the Past, Warnings for the Future

Much of the Putin regime’s economic policy is shaped by fear of repeating the late-Soviet collapse and the chaos of the 1990s. Its obsession with budget discipline and low debt stems from memories of hyperinflation, defaults, and the loss of control. But in trying to avoid past mistakes, the Kremlin may be making new ones.

Despite decades of rhetoric about modernization and diversification, Russia remains deeply dependent on oil and gas exports. The Russian Academy of Sciences warns that the country still lacks the technological base and industrial complexity to become a true economic center in any “multipolar world.”

Exports of manufactured goods are falling. Integration with non-Western economies has stalled. Domestic production has contracted in sectors requiring imported components. Rather than building resilience, the regime has built a brittle system optimized for control, not innovation.

The risk is that when energy revenues decline, either due to global decarbonization or market shifts, Russia will have no backup plan. The oligarchs may survive. The people may not.

A Fragile Balance

Russia’s wartime economy has not collapsed, but it is rotting from the inside. The state has enough money, soldiers, and slogans to maintain the illusion of progress. But this stability is built on structural distortions: inflation that masks real income loss, production that ignores consumer needs, and an elite that profits while the rest shoulder the cost.

Sanctions may not trigger instant street protests or elite defections, but they are quietly degrading the foundations of the regime: corrupt redistribution networks, regional stability, technological sovereignty, and even elite cohesion. From failing regional budgets to a desperate central bank keeping the key rate at 21% in a last-ditch effort to curb inflation, the country’s economic vitality is an illusion maintained by repression, propaganda, and an archaic power structure.

As Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky once observed, “Why should I know what is to be done when I have the power to command that it be done?” It’s a mindset that still defines Russia’s ruling class—confusing control with competence. But no amount of command can indefinitely hold together a system that eats away at its own future.

As with all brittle systems built on loyalty and fear, the greatest risks come not from below, but from within. If pressure continues—especially targeted at the regime’s internal coalition—the facade of “stability” may give way, not with revolution, but with betrayal at the center.

SEOUL, May 9 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised a test of short-range ballistic missiles and long-range artillery in a demonstration of Pyongyang’s nuclear counterstrike capabilities, state-run media said Friday.

Korean Central News Agency reported that the drill, which was conducted Thursday, involved a 600-millimeter multilayer rocket system and Hwasongpho-11-Ka tactical ballistic missiles.

Kim stressed the need to “steadily enhance the pivotal role of the nuclear force in all aspects of the strategy to deter war and the strategy to fight war,” the report said.

“[Kim] said that the DPRK should continue to direct efforts to steadily improving the long-range precision striking capability and efficiency of weapons systems, proceeding from the security environment of our state and the realistic requirements of modern warfare,” KCNA said.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

The KCNA report came a day after South Korea’s military said it detected the launch of multiple short-range ballistic missiles from the Wonsan area on the peninsula’s east coast.

The South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff speculated that the launch may have been a test of weapons systems meant for export to Russia.

Seoul and Washington say that North Korea has supplied missiles, artillery and soldiers to Russia for its war against Ukraine, while receiving much-needed financial support and advanced military technology in return.

Earlier this week, North Korean state media reported on a visit by Kim to a munitions factory, where he called for workers to boost their output of artillery shells.

Prior to Thursday’s launch, the drill inspected the operational reliability of the North’s Haekbangashoe “nuclear trigger” system. First tested in April 2024, the nuclear weapons management system is used to link a launch order to its actual execution.

“The goal of the drill was achieved and the reliability of the command and mobilization system capable of quickly reacting to any nuclear crisis was verified,” KCNA reported.

The KCNA article accused the United States and its allies of staging nuclear operation drills on the Korean Peninsula and making a nuclear attack on North Korea a “fait accompli.”

“This reckless act of aggravating the situation requires the armed forces of the DPRK to prepare for a rapid reaction capability and a thoroughgoing war posture,” KCNA said.

Pyongyang frequently criticizes U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises as rehearsals for an invasion and has denounced the deployment of American strategic assets, such as aircraft carrier strike groups and B-1B strategic bombers, to the Korean Peninsula.

On Friday, South Korea’s Unification Ministry condemned the launch, which was the North’s first ballistic missile test since March 10 and its fourth of the year.

The launch was “a violation of Security Council resolutions and a clear act of provocation that seriously threatens peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” ministry spokeswoman Kim In-ae said at a press briefing.

May 8 (UPI) — The Pentagon will begin immediately removing 1,000 transgender service members from the military, according to a memo issued Thursday, after the Supreme Court earlier this week ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s ban on transgender soldiers.

The memo states that service members who suffer from gender dysphoria or have a history with the condition may choose to separate from the military voluntarily. Service members who have yet to self-identify for voluntary separation may do so until June 6, and until July 7 for active component service members.

Following the closure of the self-identification window, the military will begin to to involuntary separate transgender military personnel.

“This is the president’s agenda, this is what the American people voted for, and we’re going to relentlessly pursue it,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in a video statement on the directive.

The approximately 1,000 service members slated for immediate removal have previously self-identified as having been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement.

There are reportedly 4,240 people in the military who have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Previous studies had estimated about 14,707 transgender Americans serving in uniform. There are roughly 2.1 million troops.

During his first week in office, Trump — who ran an anti-transgender campaign — signed an executive order directing the Pentagon to ban transgender service members by claiming that Americans with gender dysphoria serving in the military is inconsistent with the U.S. policy to “establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity.”

Limited exceptions exist for transgender service members to remain in the military where there is a “compelling government interest.”

Transgender service members challenged the policy in court, with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruling 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration’s authority to enforce the ban. No reason was given.

After the high court’s order was made public, Hegseth celebrated on social media.

“No More Trans @ DoD,” he said in a post to X.

President Trump’s 2026 “skinny budget” is out, and at first glance it gives small-government advocates reason to cheer. It proposes deep cuts to domestic agencies, calls for eliminating redundant programs and gestures toward reviving federalism by shifting power and responsibility back to the states. It promises to slash overreaching “woke” initiatives, end international handouts and abolish bureaucracies that have outlived their usefulness.

But this budget is more rhetorical than revolutionary. As impressive as Trump’s envisioned cuts are — $163 billion worth — they lose luster because the version of the budget being considered in Congress also calls for increases to defense and border security spending, as well as the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. And for all its fiery declarations, the budget fails to truly confront the drivers of our fiscal crisis.

The budget does, thankfully, enshrine the Department of Government Efficiency’s acknowledgment that federal sprawl has become unmanageable. It proposes defunding environmental-justice programs, trimming National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation budgets, slashing the Department of Education and eliminating corporate welfare masquerading as climate policy.

It also rightly calls for cutting the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities — two anachronisms with no constitutional justification. Art and education don’t need federal management; they need freedom.

The budget retreats from Washington’s micromanagement of local affairs. Education grants, housing subsidies and green-energy projects are best cut and handled by state governments or the private sector. One-size-fits-all federal fixes for everything from school lunches to water systems have failed. Devolving authority isn’t just constitutional; it’s practical.

But these trims are wrapped in a document that nevertheless sustains a bloated government. Even with the reductions, 2026 discretionary spending would remain essentially unchanged at $1.6 trillion. In some respects, the budget enshrines Biden-era spending.

Then there’s defense. For all the “America First” rhetoric about maintaining a domestic focus, Trump’s budget does nothing to rein in the Pentagon’s fiscal free-for-all aimed at projecting power around the world. Quite the opposite: It proposes a 13% increase, pushing base defense spending past $1 trillion, including $892.6 billion in discretionary spending supplemented by $119.3 billion in mandatory spending and an additional $150 billion to be passed through Congress’ reconciliation process.

The Pentagon remains the largest federal bureaucracy and among the least accountable. It hasn’t passed a full audit since 2018, yet it gets a raise. If “peace through strength” means blank checks for defense contractors and redundant weapons systems, we need to rethink our definition of strength.

Consider the new F-47 fighter jet included in this budget. As Jack Nicastro notes in Reason magazine, this aircraft — billed as the most advanced ever built — is being developed to replace the F-35, which has been a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. So far, the F-35 has cost taxpayers more than $400 billion, far beyond the initial projected cost, and is expected to total $2 trillion over its lifespan. It’s suffered from technical failures (including at some point having problems flying in the rain) and some doubt it will ever be fully functional.

Considering the government incentives that gave us the F-35 mess still exist and given that aerial combat is shifting toward automated or remotely piloted systems, why would we believe our money will be better spent on the F-47?

Trump’s budget also boosts Homeland Security spending, propping up another sprawling bureaucracy. The president’s high-profile and problematic approach to deportation, while politically popular with his constituency, costs a lot of money. As the Cato Institute’s David Bier notes, indiscriminate deportations risk shrinking the workforce, reducing tax revenue and undercutting economic growth — all while ignoring the merit-based immigration reforms Trump claims to support.

Finally, there’s the ever-present elephant in the room: entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up nearly 60% of spending and are the main drivers of our debt. Yet they are mostly untouched in the current fiscal sketch. The administration promises a more complete plan later to show where the savings would be found, but we’ve heard that before — and House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that Republicans would block some of the most effective approaches to cutting Medicaid. But the math is straightforward. Without serious entitlement reform, no discretionary spending cuts can avert a debt crisis.

The bipartisan failure to govern responsibly isn’t just a policy lapse; it’s a moral one. Deficit spending and the burden of debt repayment crowds out private investment, fuels inflation and burdens future generations with obligations they have no say over. The U.S. is on track to exceed its World War II-era debt record by 2029. If this budget is truly the plan to reverse course, we’re in trouble.

Yes, the new Trump budget has bright spots, but those gains are neutralized by massive defense spending, costly immigration priorities and persistent gimmicks. At best, it maintains a flawed status quo. We don’t need more of the same; we need evidence of a serious turnaround. Until that happens, we have little choice but to assume that Trump’s budget is another big-government blueprint in small-government clothing.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

May 7 (UPI) — Pakistan has the right to retaliate against India’s “act of war,” Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Wednesday, after New Delhi launched strikes against alleged terrorists within Pakistan’s borders.

“The cunning enemy has carried out cowardly attacks on five locations in Pakistan,” Sharif said in a statement on X. “Pakistan has every right to respond forcefully to this act of war imposed by India, and a forceful response is being given.”

No specifics of a retaliation were given, but Attaullah Tarar, Pakistan’s minister for information and broadcasting, announced in a statement that “Pakistan has befittingly retaliated against Indian Aggression.”

He said the Pakistani military had downed at least three Indian fighter jets and an Indian drone.

“The entire nation stands united in prayers and solidarity with our brave officers and soldiers,” Tarar said.

India launched Operation Sindoor over Tuesday night, attacking what it called terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Pakistan-controlled western region of Kashmir, whose sovereignty is disputed by both Pakistan and India.

The Indian Armed Forces said in a statement that it attacked nine alleged sites in retaliation for the deadly April 22 massacre of 26 tourists in the mountainous Pahalgam region of India-administered Kashmir. The Indian government has described the targets as “terrorist camps.”

“Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature,” the Indian Armed Forces said. “No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.”

India has blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam attack, alleging it was conducted by Pakistan-based terrorists.

Late last month, Tarar said Pakistan had credible intelligence showing India intended to attack it over the Pahalgam massacre.

“Indian self-assumed hubristic role of judge, jury and executioner in the region is reckless and vehemently rejected,” he said in a statement on X. “Pakistan has been the victim of terrorism itself and truly understands the pain of this scourge.”

New Delhi has previously launched strikes into Pakistan after Pakistan-based terrorists attacked it on accusations that Islamabad was harboring the militants.

In 2019, India fighter jets conducted airstrikes against Jaish-e-Mohammed camps in Pakistan after the terrorist group killed more than 40 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel in a suicide bombing in India’s Jammu and Kashmir.

“The world must show zero tolerance for terrorism,” Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s external affairs minister, said Wednesday on X.

May 6 (UPI) — The Yemen-based Houthis have “capitulated” and stopped attacking commercial and military shipping, President Donald Trump announced after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Tuesday.

“They’ve announced to us at least that they don’t want to fight anymore,” Trump told media.

“They just don’t want to fight, and we will honor that,” Trump said. “They have capitulated. But, more importantly, they … say they will not be blowing up ships anymore.”

Trump said Houthi representatives approached his administration Monday night seeking a halt to nearly two months of continuous airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, Politico reported.

U.S Central Command has said military strikes have hit at least 800 targets and killed hundreds of Houthis after the aerial campaign against the organization that controls significant parts of Yemen.

The strikes began on March 15 and were intended to stop the Houthis from continuing to attack commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

The Houthi strikes caused many commercial shipping outfits to stop using the Suez Canal and instead sail around the southern end of Africa to avoid waters near Yemen.

Trump said an informal agreement has ended the hostilities between the U.S. military and the Houthis.

It’s unclear if the Houthis agreed to stop attacking all shipping or only U.S.-flagged vessels.

Special envoy Steve Witkoff helped to negotiate the cease-fire over the weekend, with Oman officials acting as a mediator, Politico reported.

“Efforts have resulted in a cease-fire agreement between the two sides,” Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said Tuesday in a post on X.

“In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,” he said.

The Houthis will continue their strikes against Israel, though.

Houthi senior official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said the Houthis “will definitely continue our operations in support of Gaza” until hostilities end there, Bloomberg News reported.

May 6 (UPI) — India’s military launched missile strikes against what it called “terrorist targets” in Pakistan early Tuesday morning following the recent deadly attack on Indian tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir.

The Indian military launched Operation Sindoor by striking nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered areas in Jammu and Kashmir, ABC News, the Times of India and Al Jazeera reported.

Pakistani officials in Islamabad acknowledged the missile strikes and said there will be a response.

Pakistani Army officials said the missile attacks targeted Bahawalpur, Muzaffaabad and Kotli in eastern Pakistan and killed three people and injured 12 others.

The Indian Army declared “justice is served” after the missile strikes and blamed Pakistan for the deadly April 22 attack that killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam, which is known as the “Switzerland of India” due to its proximity to the Himalayan Mountains.

Several gunmen emerged from a wooded area and fired on a group of tourists before disappearing back into the wooded area.

The attack occurred in a remote valley that is accessible only by horse or on foot.

President Donald Trump called the missile attack a “shame” when asked for comment on Tuesday.

“Just heard about it,” Trump told reporters. “I guess people knew something was going to happen based on a little bit of the past. They’ve been fighting for a long time.”

Trump said he hopes for a quick end to the hostilities between India and Pakistan, ABC News reported.

U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement in which she said, “I implore the two governments to exercise restraint and prioritize diplomatic engagement. The world can ill afford instability in South Asia.”

A State Department official said they are aware of the reports but have no assessment to offer at the time.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been among U.S. officials who are working to minimize any retaliation by India after the terrorist attack.