Category World News

El-Fasher survivors from Sudan have described the horrors they saw. Combatants from the Rapid Support Forces have been accused of rape and mass murder as war crimes. Some of the people who have survived are described in these accounts.

There is a lot of anxiety in Ukraine as winter draws near.

A group of Ukraine’s allies led by France and the UK last month agreed to mobilize significant resources to help Kyiv maintain its supply of central heating and electricity in large urban areas. The effort appears to have had some impact because the heating season only started on October 28th, slightly later than usual.

However, this doesn’t provide much hope for warm homes in Ukraine in the months to come. As the cold sets in, the Russian army continues to attack the country’s crucial infrastructure, aiming to sever its power and gas supplies.

Russia’s steadfast ally, “General Winter,” is also engaged in this conflict, both against Ukraine and Europe.

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, has shifted the conflict to Ukraine’s energy and logistics systems after failing to win on the battlefield or use ultimatums to coerce Kyiv. The approach has changed, despite the initial appearance of resemblering a replay of previous winters.

Russia attempted to entice Ukrainians into surrender in 2022 and 2023. It failed . The nation’s spirit prevailed, and the lights came back. Putin’s analysis is now different. This time, the goal is not just to punish Ukraine, but to also destabilize Europe as a result of the country’s cold and darkness.

Millions of Ukrainians emigrated west by train, car, and on foot when Russia’s full-scale invasion first started in late February 2022, making the largest wave of refugees since World War II. That wave could reappear with devastating force if the energy system were to collapse. The Kremlin’s most cynical strategy is to use winter as a weapon.

Another refugee wave would be very destabilizing despite the West’s strong support for Ukraine. Europe would have to put up with a moral test as aid budgets become stretched. Between addressing growing public unrest at home and closing borders for frightened civilians fleeing the cold, it would have to be made.

There are still about 5 million Ukrainian refugees in Europe today. With 1.2 million and 900,000 people, respectively, Germany and Poland have the highest populations. Although both countries have welcomed Ukrainian refugees with open arms, public attitudes are changing as a result.

Nearly 100 000 Ukrainian men crossed into Poland after Kyiv eased border exit regulations for young men in early this year, many of whom traveled to Germany. That sparked unhappiness in the public. According to a poll conducted in October, 62% of Germans favor bringing Ukrainian soldiers back of their country, and 66% oppose benefits. Berlin last year spent 6 billion euros ($6.9 billion) on maintaining social support for Ukrainian refugees, and the new, conservative German government is complaining about tight budget cuts.

The incoming wave of young Ukrainian men fleeing Poland also sparked public outcry in the country. According to a survey conducted at the end of last year, 41% of Poles responded positively, 30% of Poles responded negatively, and 41% of Poles responded neutrally. According to 51 percent of people, the government’s support for them was excessive. This negative trend has likely persisted a year later.

There are also growing negative attitudes among Ukrainian refugees in other nations, where the population is smaller. Around 380, 000 Ukrainians have settled in the Czech Republic, and 60% of the population now think the country has accepted more refugees than it can handle.

The concern over another refugee wave is palpable throughout the bloc, but the European Commission extended temporary protection to Ukrainians until March 2027 in June. EU member states have enacted tougher sanctions on asylum seekers as a whole over the past two years. Germany’s border controls with Schengen neighbors have been reinstated, going into effect until 2026. At its border with Belarus, Poland no longer accepts asylum applications.

Putin and his ally Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus, are aware of the effectiveness of pushing desperate people to the EU’s borders. When Belarus directed asylum seekers from the Middle East and Asia toward the Polish border in 2021, they conducted this kind of hybrid warfare.

At the time, thousands of people lived close to those borders, which caused a humanitarian crisis and deaths. If Ukraine’s energy sector were to collapse this winter, thousands of people would travel west, to Poland, or to Romania and Hungary, and vice versa. Infiltration of provocateurs or drone activity along borders could quickly make the situation worse.

Would Europe be prepared?

Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, announced last month that his nation would provide generators and additional electricity to Ukraine. How, however, can generators keep more than 30 million Ukrainians warm in the midst of a icy winter?

Putin is aware of the solution. The Russian army bombs power plants, gas stations, and railroad crossings to push people westward, as a result. The power of poison has evolved into a weapon.

Ukraine’s “willing” allies may find their capacity to show signs of complacency this winter.

On his way to constructing what he claims will be a new 8, 400-square-foot (90, 000-square-foot) ballroom, President Donald Trump has completely destroyed the East Wing of the White House, shocking historic preservationists and drawing national ire.

Trump’s supporters point to another recent White House renovation, suggesting the current outcry is unjustifiably unfair, despite criticism of this projected $300 million project.

An October 22 X post that shared a 25-second clip of a&nbsp, CNN news story read, ” A CNN report from 2010: Renovation of the Obama administration cost $ 376 million.” Where did the Democratic outcry go then?

A CNN report from 2010:

Renovation of the Obama administration cost $ 376 million.

The Democrats’ outraged, where was it then? pic. twitter.com/MvLVDFcTru

Another X post that shared the same video clip reshared it with “BREAKING.” A 2010 CNN clip that shows Obama’s $376 million White House makeover, which taxpayers paid for, is being “explored.” While President Trump is paying for his $250 million ballroom,

A 2010 CNN clip that depicts Obama’s $376 million White House makeover was discovered by the public. While President Trump is paying for his own $ 250 million ballroom, pic. twitter.com/PSS2K8SJRJ

During the White House renovation, Obama served as president. However, there are significant differences between Trump’s and that project.

After a government report released during President George W. Bush’s second term discovered that the building needed upgrades to its electrical and water pipes, Congress approved funding for White House work in 2008, according to a CNN report from 2010 that was released. Since the changes, which hadn’t been updated since 1902 or 1934, improved the heating, cooling, and fire alarm systems.

In 2010, Bob Peck, the then US General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service commissioner, claimed that the White House occasionally experienced power outages and leaky pipes.

The interior of the building was primarily affected by Obama’s underground renovations.

The White House’s interior was updated and redecorated separately in 2009 from the Obamas&nbsp without using taxpayer funds. The White House’s new furnishings were largely funded by Obama’s book royalties and donations, according to The New York Times in 2020. The White House tennis court was also modified by Obama to make it more suitable for basketball use.

The federal agency that oversees federal building construction and renovations has not approved Trump’s demolition of the East Wing and addition of a ballroom. The project’s goal is to increase the East Wing’s seating capacity from 200 to 999, according to Trump.

Trump has since stated that the project will be $300 million, which was originally estimated at $200 million, but has since stated that it will be funded by donations. According to The Washington Post&nbsp, donors include businesses like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft.

The American public has been completely in the dark about the President’s plans, according to Sara Bronin, a professor of law at George Washington University, is “unprecedented in all the wrong ways.”

The Society of Architectural Historians’ Heritage Conservation Committee chair, Priya Jain, objected to calling Trump’s project a renovation. She said, “This project involves the total destruction of a significant portion of the building.”

Trump’s renovations were covered by Obama’s era project, which destroyed a whole wing.

According to CNN, the Obama-era renovation began in 2010 with an estimated $ 376 million in renovation costs for the East and West Wings, according to a report from 2010.

Peck described the project as largely subterranean utility work. When questioned about the cost, Peck told CNN: “It doesn’t do a lot of good to have a building that’s the kind of the image of the free world standing up there and functioning poorly.”

The Obama renovation was the largest White House upgrade since Harry Truman took office, according to Bloomberg News&nbsp in 2010. In response to significant structural and historical problems that at one point led to the leg of his daughter’s piano breaking through the floor, Truman oversaw the White House’s historic gutting,  , renovation and expansion   from 1948 to 1952.

According to historians who study historic preservation, Trump’s project will be the White House’s first significant exterior change in 83 years.

In a statement released on October 16, the Society of Architectural Historians stated that “a significant change to a historic building of this import should follow a rigorous and deliberate design and review process.”

Trump has also added gold highlights to the Oval Office and paved over the Rose Garden lawn since taking office a second time. The Rose Garden project, overseen by the National Park Service, and the National Park Service.

Federal agency approval for presidents’ projects is different.

The National Capital Planning Commission, the federal body that regulates the construction and renovation of federal buildings, convened a meeting in September to discuss the commission’s jurisdiction over “construction and vertical build” only. If the federal government shutdown continues, the commission was scheduled to meet on November 6. However, it’s not certain whether that will occur.

The National Planning Commission Project Search had no access to the database’s records before January 2012, but PolitiFact found them after checking the database for approval records for the Obama renovations. We contacted the commission to ask if they would approve the renovations for 2010 but were unsuccessful because of their closure.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which requires each federal agency to take into account public perceptions and concerns when making final project decisions, exempts The White House from its provisions in Section 106. Presidents have typically undertaken White House projects in the spirit of public transparency, according to Michael Spencer, an associate professor in the University of Mary Washington’s historic preservation department. For instance, the National Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, both, the commissions, approved Trump’s first-term term-long tennis facility modifications.

Most important of all of these projects involved the demolition of well-known historic structures, according to Jain.

According to National Park Service guidelines, the East Colonnade  and East Wing  were constructed in 1902 and 1942, respectively, and should have been evaluated for historical significance before being destroyed, she said.

For the time being, planned nuclear tests will be “noncritical” and won’t have any nuclear explosions, according to United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Three days after President Donald Trump announced he had instructed the Department of Defense to “immediately” restart testing of US nuclear weapons, this clarification was made on Sunday.

What exactly are “noncritical” nuclear tests?

On the Fox News program The Sunday Briefing, Wright said, “I believe the tests we’re currently talking about are system tests.”

“These are not nuclear explosions,” the statement read. Noncritical explosions are what we refer to as these.

Wright explained that the only things that will be tested for nuclear weapons until now will be whether or not they function properly and cause nuclear explosion. He claimed that these tests will be carried out to demonstrate that the new nuclear weapons are superior to the previous ones.

We can simulate incredibly accurately exactly what will happen in a nuclear explosion thanks to our expertise in science and computation,” Wright said. We now simulate the conditions that caused that, and what will happen as we change the bomb designs.

Numerous nonnuclear explosive techniques can be employed for the development, maintenance, and monitoring of nuclear weapons, according to the website of the Washington, DC-based nonpartisan organization Arms Control Association. These can also include “subcritical” experiments that use plutonium without causing nuclear chain reactions.

According to Georgia Cole, a research analyst at Chatham House’s International Security Programme, “noncritical” nuclear tests involve testing of nuclear weapon delivery systems or components but not the detonation of a nuclear warhead.

“Noncritical tests are typically conducted in laboratories or testing facilities, frequently using cutting-edge computer simulations to evaluate nuclear warhead safety and reliability without detonation. There are also “subcritical” tests, which are underground, frequently at former nuclear test sites.

Trump made an announcement regarding nuclear tests.

Trump stated in a statement on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that he had instructed the Department of War to begin testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis because of other nations’ testing programs. In September, Trump signed an executive order changing the name to “Department of War.”

Trump continued in his post that China “will be at least nuclear weapons free of China within five years” despite the US having “more nuclear weapons than any other country”.

Trump cited China’s rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal as a justification for his testing decision. A truce on tariffs and some Chinese export restrictions on rare earth metals was made shortly before Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which set off the announcement.

Trump said on Sunday in a 60 Minutes interview on the CBS News program that “Russian and Chinese nuclear testing is not discussed.” We are a society that is open, you know. We are unique. We discuss it. We must discuss it.

Trump continued, “We’re going to test because others test and they test.” And North Korea has undoubtedly tested. Pakistan has been conducting testing.

Trump did not provide any proof that any of the nations he mentioned has recently conducted nuclear weapons tests in secret, and he did not provide any supporting evidence. He doesn’t know why China could, in just five years, surpass the US’s vast nuclear arsenal.

There isn’t any conclusive proof that Pakistan, China, or Russia are conducting irrational nuclear tests. North Korea, which has observed a self-declared moratorium since 2018, is the only nation to have conducted nuclear tests in the 21st century, according to Cole.

There is no evidence that any of the nuclear-armed states have resumed nuclear detonations, despite the fact that all nuclear-armed states regularly test their missile-powered weapons.

Which nations possess the most nuclear weapons?

The US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are the only nations that possess nuclear weapons.

Russia has the highest total warhead count, 4 309, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) yearbook report released in January.

The US, which has 3,700 warheads, follows Russia. China has 600. France has 290. The UK has 225. India has 180. Pakistan has 170. North Korea has 50 and Israel has 90.

According to a SIPRI report from June, China’s nuclear arsenal has grown by about 100 warheads annually since 2023, surpassing that of every other nation. By 2030, China is expected to have 1, 000 nuclear weapons, according to a report released by the Pentagon in December.

Russia has retired 1, 150 nuclear weapons while the US has retired 1, 477. A nation’s military arsenal has been taken from a retired warhead and is awaiting its destruction. The retired warheads “are still relatively intact,” according to a report released in March by the Federation of American Scientists, a think tank based in the US.

Retired warheads may be restored in some cases, based on how far the pieces have advanced through the dismantlement process. However, this procedure can take a lot of time and resources. More frequently, states “repeat components from outdated warheads” when developing or refining a new weapon, according to Cole.

How frequently have nations tested?

The first nuclear weapon detonation occurred over New Mexico’s desert in 1945, when the US started testing them. More than 30 years ago, in 1992, it tested nuclear weapons. According to the United Nations, the US has conducted 1, 032 nuclear tests overall.

The last nuclear test was in 1990, the last one being conducted by the Soviet Union. No nuclear tests have been conducted in Russia, which inherited the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear weapons were tested 45 times by China in 1996.

Nuclear weapons were tested in 1996 by France for the last time. It conducted 210 tests from 1945 to 1996. From 1952 until 1991, the UK conducted 45 nuclear tests. The last one was the last one.

Following the introduction of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the majority of nations have stopped testing nuclear weapons.

According to the UN, ten nuclear tests have occurred since then: two by India and two by Pakistan in 1998, and six by North Korea in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2016 (twice), and 2017. The CTBT is not currently being ratified by India, Pakistan, or North Korea.

The US ratified the CTBT in 1996 but did not ratify it. The Russian government ratified the CTBT in 1996 and in 2000, but President Vladimir Putin withdrew its ratification in 2023.

A nation’s signature of a treaty indicates its general acceptance of the terms of the treaty and its intention to continue adhering to it. The treaty only becomes legally binding for that nation under international law upon ratification.

Do US nuclear tests need to be updated?

US officials have argued that the country is exempt from conducting additional nuclear tests in the name of science and political figures.

The US Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NSA), is. The nuclear weapons stewardship is governed by the agency’s security, maintenance, and stockpile management. The US does not require new tests, according to the NNSA’s repeated assertions.

During his confirmation hearing in the US in April, Brandon Williams, the agency’s new administrator, stated that the country has determined that the nuclear stockpile without nuclear explosive testing is still safe, secure, and effective.

Williams added that the US Strategic Command commander and national security lab directors annually review the nuclear stockpile to determine whether underground nuclear testing is required. In a 2023 interview with the Arms Control Association, NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby also stated that new testing was not necessary.

Could US tests start a new nuclear race?

Other nations are likely to follow suit if the US breaks this moratorium on testing nuclear weapons, according to experts.

Other countries would almost certainly respond in kind if the US resumed its nuclear testing. Russia has already stated that any US tests would be modeled on, which could lead to China and North Korea to follow. The end of a 30-year moratorium on nuclear testing would reverse decades of restraint and sharply worsen the world’s nuclear risks, according to Cole.

Cuba’s once-world-class healthcare system is being stifled by US sanctions because it is free, universal, and failing.