How will Putin travel to Hungary to meet Trump with ICC arrest warrant?

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, will travel to Hungary in the near future to meet with Donald Trump, the US’s ambassador, for a second summit on ending the Ukrainian conflict. The first, which occurred in Alaska in August, failed to lead to any agreement.

How will the fugitive from justice make it to the bargaining table given that a 2023 International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant was issued for Putin’s arrest over the alleged illegal deportation of Ukrainian children during Russia’s conflict with Ukraine?

The Hague-based court established by the 1998 Rome Statute in 2002 must detain those who are subject to warrants as soon as they enter their country, which theoretically includes airspace, which is also regarded as sovereign territory under international law.

Countries would be bound by the agreement, including Hungary, which recently announced its intention to leave. This would make it a safe haven for Putin.

However, the ICC, which has 125 member states, has no means of imposing arrests.

What awaits Putin on his upcoming travels, then?

Israel’s “Wing of Zion,” which briefly flew over Greek and Italian territory before transporting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to New York for the UN General Council meeting last month, can be seen at the Athens International Airport.

Isn’t Hungary a member of the ICC as well?

On paper, the answer is yes. However, it is leaving.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the country in April when right-wing populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced the country would abandon the ICC’s founding document. In addition to his arrest warrant, which was issued earlier this year, Netanyahu is also listed as one of the most wanted by the ICC for his involvement in the war crimes committed in Gaza.

The withdrawal process begins one year after the United Nations Secretary-General receives a written notification of the decision after the Hungarian parliament approved a bill back in May.

Putin appears safe from arrest on Hungarian soil given Peter Szijjarto’s comments on the “sovereign” nation’s intentions to host the president with “respect” and ensure he has “successful negotiations, and then returns home” on Friday.

Orban Putin
Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, and Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, speak at a press conference in Moscow, Russia, on July 5, 2024 [Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters]

How about the atmosphere? He might be intercepted in midair, right?

“Many questions must be solved before Putin embarks on his journey,” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday. The president’s flight path is likely to be the subject of one of those inquiries.

Following recent Russian jet infiltrations of Estonia’s airspace, which has put the region on high alert for a potential overspill from the Ukraine war, Putin will likely want to stay away from the Baltic states. A hard landing could be made by the Baltics.

Poland, which has historically had strained relations with the Kremlin, and which is friendly Belarus might offer a convenient corridor between the Baltics and Ukraine further south. This would set the president on course for this and warn Europe of a “deep” Russian strike on its territory. Recently, Russian drones have also entered Polish airspace.

Russia’s populist Robert Fico, who is in charge of Slovakia, continues to guzzle Russian energy in defiance of Trump’s orders to stop imports of oil and gas, and may be more accommodating. In fact, Fico and other EU members are engaged in conflict due to sanctions against Moscow. However, before reaching Slovakia, Putin would need to cross Poland first.

Therefore, Putin’s direct route to Budapest appears to be riddled with obstacles.

What about a route that is more congested?

Netanyahu, a fellow ICC fugitive wanted for crimes including using starvation as a weapon of war against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, who traveled to several European nations last month to attend the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Putin may have inspired him.

According to FlightRadar24, the Wing of Zion plane of the Israeli Prime Minister briefly flew over Greek and Italian territory before veering off into the Atlantic.

Putin might consider taking a southbound flight. Georgia is a signatory to the Rome Statute but has the potential to turn a blind eye when its ruling party, the Georgian Dream, suspends Tbilisi’s application to join the EU.

And Turkiye, which is not party to the Rome Statute but has long hosted negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators and has treaded a tightrope, might be able to persuade the Russian president to step down.

Greece would serve as the main barrier from there, opening a way for Orban’s warm welcome through the Balkan states.

Orban Netanyahu
On April 3, 2025, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban addresses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a ceremony held at the Lion’s Courtyard in Budapest, Hungary.

Has Putin traveled extensively since he was a war criminal wanted on international grounds?

Since the ICC warrant was issued, Putin has clearly restricted his travels.

He rode his horseback through Mongolia last year and was treated to a lavish ceremony with Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh.

Russia and Mongolia depend on one another for fuel and electricity, but they have very friendly relations. It was surprising to see the red carpet being drawn out because the nation has abstained during UN votes on the conflict and has abstained from condemning Russia’s offensive in Ukraine.

Since Trump was able to fly directly to Alaska for a bilateral with him in August, he was able to fly over his nation’s enormous landmass over the Bering Strait to the US, which is not a signatory of the Rome Statute.

Since China is not a member of the ICC, the “old friend” and neighbor Xi Jinping’s annual parade and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit presented no issues this year.

The Russian president met with leaders from Central Asia this month, and he wants to strengthen ties with Tajikistan, which has ratified the Rome Statute.

ICC
On September 22, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) established itself in The Hague, Netherlands.

Putin: When will he be detained?

Although it is nearly inconceivable to capture Russia’s president, the arrest warrants represent the first step toward a trial.

Only a select few foreign leaders have visited The Hague.

Rodrigo Duterte, the ex-president of the Philippines, turned himself in earlier this year to face crimes against humanity. The charges relate to extrajudicial killings committed during his infamous “war on drugs,” which resulted in the deaths of countless others.

Charles Taylor, a former leader of Liberia and a warlord, was found guilty in 2012 by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, which held trial in The Hague. He was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Would a future Russian leader choose to forcibly hand Putin over for crimes against humanity committed during the former Yugoslavian wars, as happened with Slobodan Milosevic, who was removed in 2000 after being excommunicated from Serbia?

John Bolton pleads not guilty to mishandling classified information in US

Former United States National Security Adviser John Bolton has pleaded not guilty to federal charges over his handling of classified information.

On Friday, Bolton surrendered to authorities at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, where he also delivered his plea.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

He faces eight counts of transmitting national defence information and 10 counts of unlawfully retaining such information, each with the potential for 10 years in prison. If found guilty, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Bolton has served under four Republican presidents: He was an assistant attorney general under Ronald Reagan, a diplomat under George HW Bush, an ambassador to the United Nations under George W Bush and a national security adviser for Donald Trump.

But it is his relationship with Trump that has raised concerns that his prosecution could be politically motivated.

Questions of retaliation

Bolton’s indictment is the third in a series of charges unveiled against prominent Trump critics since the president replaced the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia with one of his personal lawyers, Lindsey Halligan.

Since she was sworn in on September 22, Halligan has pursued criminal indictments against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Letitia James, New York state’s attorney general.

In all three cases, Trump has a long and public history of acrimony with the defendants.

Comey, for example, led the FBI during its investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, a probe Trump considered a smear attempt. The president ultimately fired Comey early in his first term, in 2017.

James, meanwhile, successfully led a civil fraud case alleging that Trump and his associates at the Trump Organization inflated their assets to secure advantageous financing. In 2024, a court ordered Trump to pay $364m in damages, a sum that was later thrown out as “excessive”.

Trump named both James and Comey in a social media post explicitly calling on the Department of Justice to prosecute his political rivals last month.

“They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote in the post, directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The post proceeded to assert that Trump had fired the previous US attorney in Virginia for telling him they “had no case”.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he continued. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!) OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Abbe Lowell, John Bolton’s lawyer, arrives for the October 17 arraignment hearing [Rod Lamkey, Jr/AP Photo]

Bolton’s ties with Trump

Bolton, who was not named in the post, has nevertheless had his own long-running feud with the Republican leader.

Known for his hawkish foreign policy, advocating for aggressive US action in countries like Iran, Bolton served in Trump’s first administration for just over a year, from 2018 to 2019. Bolton was the third national security adviser Trump had appointed in less than two years.

It is unclear whether Bolton was ultimately fired from his role, as Trump has claimed, or if he resigned, as Bolton himself maintains.

But Trump had clashed with Bolton over the latter’s hardline positions, a fact he has brought up in public comments.

“If I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now,” Trump wrote in a post to Twitter, the platform currently known as X.

Bolton himself unloaded on Trump in a 2020 memoir about his time in the White House, called The Room Where It Happened. The book accused Trump of making policy decisions based on self-interest and showing a lack of awareness about global affairs.

Bolton even suggested Trump had petitioned China to boost his re-election prospects.

“He couldn’t tell the difference between his personal interests and the country’s interests,” Bolton wrote at one point.

The former national security adviser has also made numerous appearances on cable news channels, serving as a critic of Trump and his policies.

On Thursday, in an Oval Office meeting with reporters, Trump denied knowing about the charges against Bolton, though he did take another jab his former adviser.

“ I didn’t know that. You’re telling me for the first time,” Trump told a reporter who asked about Thursday’s indictment. “Yeah, he’s a bad guy. It’s too bad. But that’s the way it goes.”

John Bolton arrives at a Maryland courthouse.
John Bolton, right, faces criminal charges for allegedly mishandling classified information [Rod Lamkey, Jr/AP Photo]

Inside the indictment

When Trump returned to office for a second term in January, Bolton was among the first former officials to face backlash from the incoming administration.

On January 21, a day after his inauguration, Trump stripped Bolton of his security detail, a decision Bolton criticised, given the assassination attempt he allegedly faced from Iranian forces.

“I am disappointed but not surprised,” Bolton wrote on social media at the time. “The Justice Department filed criminal charges against an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official in 2022 for attempting to hire a hit man to target me. That threat remains today.”

Then, in August, FBI officials raided Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, leaving with computer drives and several boxes of material.

The 26-page criminal indictment, released on Thursday, marks an escalation from that investigation.

Bolton, it says, “abused his position as National Security Advisor by sharing more than a thousand pages of information about his day-to-day activities as National Security Advisor — including information relating to the national defense which was classified up to the TOP SECRET/SCI level — with two unauthorized individuals”.

It also accuses Bolton of having “unlawfully retained documents, writings, and notes relating to national defense”.

Some of those writings, the indictment explains, were “diary-like entries” that were initially handwritten and later transcribed and sent to the two recipients electronically.

Those recipients have been reported in US media to be relatives, possibly Bolton’s wife and daughter.

The indictment adds that, after Bolton left office, he was targeted by a “cyber actor believed to be associated with the Islamic Republic”. That, in turn, may have granted the hacker access to the classified materials Bolton had.

Critics have pointed out that Trump himself had been indicted in a classified documents case, with an investigation retrieving some 33 boxes and 11,000 records from the Republican leader’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Federal prosecutors had alleged that Trump attempted to conceal those documents in case that was dropped shortly before his second term. It is Justice Department policy not to prosecute a sitting president.

Since taking office, Trump officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have likewise come under fire for sharing sensitive military information over the messaging app Signal — information that was accidentally shared with a journalist.

Bolton had criticised the Signal app leak publicly, appearing in US media to blast the Trump officials’ conduct. Those words were used in Thursday’s indictment as evidence that Bolton was aware of the security procedures necessary to handle sensitive information.

“I couldn’t find a way to express how stunned I was that anybody would do this,” Bolton is quoted as saying. “You simply don’t use commercial means of communication, whether it’s supposedly an encrypted app or not, for these kinds of discussions.”

Bolton has denied the charges against him. Instead, he has characterised the recent string of indictments an effort by Trump to “intimidate his opponents”.

“I have become the latest target in weaponising the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts,” Bolton said in a statement.

French massacre of WWII African riflemen ‘premeditated’, covered up: Report

According to a paper presented to the president of Senegal and seen by the news agency AFP, the massacre of African World War II riflemen demanding pay for their service to France in 1944 was planned, covered up, and the death toll was significantly underestimated.

At least 35 infantrymen were killed in the massacre at the Thiaroye camp, close to Dakar, according to French colonial authorities at the time.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

However, a committee of researchers led by historian Mamadou Diouf, who wrote the 301-page report, estimated 300 to 400 deaths.

According to AFP reports, the document also urges France to officially request forgiveness in a letter sent on Thursday to Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye.

The main points of the report are as follows:

  • Facts that were “deliberately hidden or buried in masses of administrative and military archives and sparingly released” are “restored” by the report.
  • The researchers wrote that it is difficult to estimate the actual death toll from the tragedy today, particularly given the number of victims and injured. However, they claimed that “more than 400 riflemen vanished as if they had never existed” and that previous reports of 35 or 70 deaths were “contradictory and patently false.” According to them, 300 to 400 deaths are the “most credible” death toll.
  • According to the report, the massacre “was intended to persuade people that the colonial order could not be undermined by the Second World War’s emancipatory effects.” For this reason, it continued, “the operation was planned, meticulously executed, and carried out in coordinated actions.” The riflemen would have defended themselves if they had been armed, it said, adding that “nowhere was the slightest act of resistance mentioned.”
  • Additionally, the report came to the conclusion that some of the killings took place at the train station while others occurred at the Thiaroye camp.

In November 1944, after being captured by Germany while fighting for France, approximately 1,300 soldiers from various West African nations were dispatched to the Thiaroye camp.

Unsatisfaction with unpaid back pay and unsatisfactory demands for treatment of the same level as white soldiers quickly rose.

French forces opened fire on them on December 1 of that year.

According to the report, “the French authorities did everything possible to cover up” the killings in the days immediately following the massacre.” This included altering the riflemen’s records for arrival and departure from France, the soldiers’ numbers in Thiaroye, and other details.

Additionally, according to the report, “some administrative and military archives are inaccessible or inconsistent, while others have vanished or been falsified.”

There is a significant lack of source material related to the massacre in Dakar, where the archives of France’s former West African colonies are concentrated, according to the report.

The committee claimed that its research had been aided by French archives’ collaboration, but that “several of our questions and requests encountered a wall of smoke and mirrors.”

The researchers suggested that the European Court of Human Rights “declare that the Thiaroye massacre is a massive and obvious violation” of the riflemen’s human rights.

Trump expects expansion of Abraham accords soon, hopes S Arabia will join

United States President Donald Trump has said he expects an expansion of the Abraham Accords soon and hopes Saudi Arabia will join the pact that normalised diplomatic relations between Israel and some Arab states, one week into the all-encompassing and fragile Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

“I hope to see Saudi Arabia go in, and I hope to see others go in. I think when Saudi Arabia goes in, everybody goes in,” Trump said in an interview broadcast Friday on Fox Business Network.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The US president called the pact a “miracle” and “amazing” and hailed the United Arab Emirates’s signing of it.

The “Abraham Accords” secured agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

“It’ll help bring long-lasting peace to the Middle East,” Trump claimed with his signature bombast.

But there are several factors at play since the original iteration of the accords, signed with fanfare at the White House during Trump’s first term as president in 2020.

Israel has carried out a two-year genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, escalated its harsh assault on the occupied West Bank, and beyond Palestine, bombed six countries in the region this year, including key Gulf Arab mediator Qatar, the huge diplomatic fallout from which effectively helped Trump force Israel into a ceasefire in Gaza.

An emergency summit of Arab and Muslim countries held in Doha in September, in the wake of the attack, staunchly declared its solidarity with Qatar and condemned Israel’s bombing of the Qatari capital.

The extraordinary joint session between the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) gathered nearly 60 member states. Leaders said the meeting marked a critical moment to deliver a united message following what they described as an unprecedented escalation by Israel.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of a “Greater Israel”, has also been roundly condemned by Arab and Muslim countries, and involves hegemonic designs on Lebanese and Syrian territory, among others. Syrian President al-Sharaa, while welcoming Washington’s moves to end its international isolation, has not been warm to the idea of signing up to the Abraham Accords.

Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem appealed to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks to mend relations with the Lebanese armed group, aligned with Iran, and build a common front against Israel.

An August survey from the Washington Institute, a pro-Israel think tank in the US, found that 81 percent of Saudi respondents viewed the prospect of normalising relations with Israel negatively.

A Foreign Affairs and Arab Barometer poll from June came to similar findings: in Morocco, one of the Abraham Accords signatories, support for the deal fell from 31 percent in 2022 to 13 percent in the months after Israel’s war on Gaza began in October 2023.

UK’s Palestine Action group wins legal bid to challenge ban

The United Kingdom government cannot block the cofounder of pro-Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action from bringing a legal challenge over the banning of the group under “anti-terrorism” laws, a court has said.

Huda Ammori, who helped found Palestine Action in 2020, was on Friday given permission to challenge the group’s proscription on the grounds that the ban is a disproportionate interference with free speech rights, with her case due to be heard next month.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Britain’s Home Office, the interior ministry, then asked the Court of Appeal to overturn that decision and rule that any challenge to the ban should be heard by a specialist tribunal.

Judge Sue Carr rejected the Home Office’s appeal, saying challenging the proscription in the High Court was quicker, particularly where people have been charged and are facing trial for expressing support for Palestine Action.

The court also ruled that Ammori could challenge the ban in the High Court on additional grounds, which Ammori said was a significant victory.

“It’s time for the government to listen to the overwhelming and mounting backlash … and lift this widely condemned, utterly Orwellian ban,” she said in a statement.

“The Judicial Review will go ahead on November 25-27th,” Ammori said in a post on X later on Friday.

She hailed the group’s win to challenge “two more grounds to argue the illegality of the ban”.

“Huge victory,” she added.

Disrupting the ‘arms industry’

Palestine Action was proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation by the government in July, making membership a crime which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

More than 2,000 people have since been arrested for holding signs in support of the group, with at least 100 charged.

Before the ban, Palestine Action had increasingly targeted Israel-linked companies in Britain, sometimes spraying red paint, blocking entrances or damaging equipment.

It accused the UK government of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Israel has repeatedly denied committing war crimes in its two-year genocidal campaign, which has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians. Rights groups have accused Israel of repeatedly committing abuses in its war in Gaza, which began on October 7, 2023.

Israel and Hamas agreed on a ceasefire last week.

Palestine Action particularly focused on Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems, and Britain’s government cited a raid by activists at an Elbit site last year when it decided to outlaw the group.

The group was banned a month after some of its members broke into the RAF Brize Norton air base and damaged two planes, for which four members have been charged.

Palestine Action describes itself as “a pro-Palestinian organisation which disrupts the arms industry in the United Kingdom with direct action”. It says it is “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

Critics of the ban – including United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk and civil liberties groups – argue that damaging property does not amount to terrorism.