Monday, December 29, 2025

OPINION

John Simpson: "I've reported on 40 wars but I've never seen a year like 2025"

29 December 2025
John Simpson, BBC World Affairs Editor


John Simpson is the BBC's World Affairs editor, and one of its most experienced journalists. In this somber and candid article for BBC InDepth Simpson says "I've reported on 40 wars but I've never seen a year like 2025". commonspace.eu is republishing the article in full because of its importance:

I've reported on more than 40 wars around the world during my career, which goes back to the 1960s. I watched the Cold War reach its height, then simply evaporate. But I've never seen a year quite as worrying as 2025 has been - not just because several major conflicts are raging but because it is becoming clear that one of them has geopolitical implications of unparalleled importance.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that the current conflict in his country could escalate into a world war. After nearly 60 years of observing conflict, I've got a nasty feeling he's right.

Ukraine's President has warned that the current conflict in Ukraine could escalate into a world war

Nato governments are on high alert for any signs that Russia is cutting the undersea cables that carry the electronic traffic that keeps Western society going. Their drones are accused of testing the defences of Nato countries. Their hackers develop ways of putting ministries, emergency services and huge corporations out of operation.

Authorities in the west are certain Russia's secret services murder and attempt to murder dissidents who have taken refuge in the West. An inquiry into the attempted murder in Salisbury of the former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skrypal in 2018 (plus the actual fatal poisoning of a local woman, Dawn Sturgess) concluded that the attack had been agreed at the highest level in Russia. That means President Putin himself.
This time feels different

The year 2025 has been marked by three very different wars. There is Ukraine of course, where the UN says 14,000 civilians have died. In Gaza, where Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu promised "mighty vengeance" after about 1,200 people were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 and 251 people were taken hostage.

Since then, more than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military action, including more than 30,000 women and children according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry – figures the UN considers reliable.

Meanwhile there has been a ferocious civil war between two military factions in Sudan. More than 150,000 people have been killed there over the past couple of years; around 12 million have been forced out of their homes.

Maybe, if this had been the only war in 2025, the outside world would have done more to stop it; but it wasn't.

"I'm good at solving wars," said US President Donald Trump, as his aircraft flew him to Israel after he had negotiated a ceasefire in the Gaza fighting. It's true that fewer people are dying in Gaza now. Despite the ceasefire, the Gaza war certainly doesn't feel as though it's been solved.

Given the appalling suffering in the Middle East it may sound strange to say the war in Ukraine is on a completely different level to this. But it is.

The Cold War aside, most of the conflicts I've covered over the years have been small-scale affairs: nasty and dangerous, certainly, but not serious enough to threaten the peace of the entire world. Some conflicts, such as Vietnam, the first Gulf War, and the war in Kosovo, did occasionally look as though they might tip over into something much worse, but they never did.

The great powers were too nervous about the dangers that a localised, conventional war might turn into a nuclear one.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," the British Gen Sir Mike Jackson reportedly shouted over his radio in Kosovo in 1999, when his Nato superior ordered British and French forces to seize an airfield in Pristina after the Russian troops had got there first.

In the coming year, 2026, though, Russia, noting President Trump's apparent lack of interest in Europe, seems ready and willing to push for much greater dominance.

Earlier this month, Putin said Russia was not planning to go to war with Europe, but was ready "right now" if Europeans wanted to.

At a later televised event he said: "There won't be any operations if you treat us with respect, if you respect our interests just as we've always tried to respect yours".

Putin said Russia was not planning to go to war with Europe, but was ready "right now" if Europeans wanted to

But already Russia, a major world power, has invaded an independent European country, resulting in huge numbers of civilian and also military deaths. It is accused by Ukraine of kidnapping at least 20,000 children. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for his involvement in this, something Russia has always denied.

Russia says it invaded in order to protect itself against Nato encroachment, but President Putin has indicated another motive: the desire to restore Russia's regional sphere of influence.
American disapproval

He is gratefully aware that this last year, 2025, has seen something most Western countries had regarded as unthinkable: the possibility that an American president might turn his back on the strategic system which has been in force ever since World War Two.

Not only is Washington now uncertain it wants to protect Europe, it disapproves of the direction it believes Europe is heading in. The Trump administration's new national security strategy report claims Europe now faces the "stark prospect of civilisational erasure".

The Kremlin welcomed the report, saying it is consistent with Russia's own vision. You bet it is.

Inside Russia, Putin has silenced most internal opposition to himself and to the Ukraine war, according to the UN special rapporteur focusing on human rights in Russia. He's got his own problems, though: the possibility of inflation rising again after a recent cooling, oil revenues falling, and his government having had to raise VAT to help pay for the war.

US President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky clashed during a meeting at the White House in February 2025

The economies of the European Union are 10 times bigger than Russia's; even more than that if you add the UK. The combined European population of 450 million, is over three times Russia's 145 million. Still, Western Europe has seemed nervous of losing its creature comforts, and was until recently reluctant to pay for its own defence as long as America can be persuaded to protect it.

America, too, is different nowadays: less influential, more inward-looking, and increasingly different from the America I've reported on for my entire career. Now, very much as in the 1920s and 30s, it wants to concentrate on its own national interests.

Even if President Trump loses a lot of his political strength at next year's mid-term elections, he may have shifted the dial so far towards isolationism that even a more Nato-minded American president in 2028 might find it hard to come to Europe's aid.

Don't think Vladimir Putin hasn't noticed that.
The risk of escalation

The coming year, 2026, does look as though it'll be important. Zelensky may well feel obliged to agree to a peace deal, carving off a large part of Ukrainian territory. Will there be enough bankable guarantees to stop President Putin coming back for more in a few years' time?

For Ukraine and its European supporters, already feeling that they are at war with Russia, that's an important question. Europe will have to take over a far greater share of keeping Ukraine going, but if the United States turns its back on Ukraine, as it sometimes threatens to do, that will be a colossal burden.

If the United States turns its back on Ukraine, that will be a colossal burden for Europe

But could the war turn into a nuclear confrontation?

We know President Putin is a gambler; a more careful leader would have shied away from invading Ukraine in February 2022. His henchmen make bloodcurdling threats about wiping the UK and other European countries off the map with Russia's vaunted new weapons, but he's usually much more restrained himself.

While the Americans are still active members of Nato, the risk that they could respond with a devastating nuclear attack of their own is still too great. For now.
China's global role

As for China, President Xi Jinping has made few outright threats against the self-governed island of Taiwan recently. But two years ago the then director of the CIA William Burns said Xi Jinping had ordered the People's Liberation Army to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. If China doesn't take some sort of decisive action to claim Taiwan, Xi Jinping could consider this to look pretty feeble. He won't want that.

You might think that China is too strong and wealthy nowadays to worry about domestic public opinion. Not so. Ever since the uprising against Deng Xiaoping in 1989, which ended with the Tiananmen massacre, Chinese leaders have monitored the way the country reacts with obsessive care.

I watched the events unfold in Tiananmen myself, reporting and even sometimes living in the Square.

The story of 4 June 1989 wasn't as simple as we thought at the time: armed soldiers shooting down unarmed students. That certainly happened, but there was another battle going on in Beijing and many other Chinese cities. Thousands of ordinary working-class people came out onto the streets, determined to use the attack on the students as a chance to overthrow the control of the Chinese Communist Party altogether.

When I drove through the streets two days later, I saw at least five police stations and three local security police headquarters burned out. In one suburb the angry crowd had set fire to a policeman and propped up his charred body against a wall. A uniform cap was put at a jaunty angle on his head, and a cigarette had been stuck between his blackened lips.

It turns out the army wasn't just putting down a long-standing demonstration by students, it was stamping out a popular uprising by ordinary Chinese people.

China's political leadership, still unable to bury the memories of what happened 36 years ago, is constantly on the look-out for signs of opposition - whether from organised groups like Falun Gong or the independent Christian church or the democracy movement in Hong Kong, or just people demonstrating against local corruption. All are stamped on with great force.

I have spent a good deal of time reporting on China since 1989, watching its rise to economic and political dominance. I even came to know a top politician who was Xi Jinping's rival and competitor. His name was Bo Xilai, and he was an anglophile who spoke surprisingly openly about China's politics.

He once said to me, "You'll never understand how insecure a government feels when it knows it hasn't been elected."

As for Bo Xilai, he was jailed for life in 2013 after being found guilty of bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power.

John Simpson has spent a good deal of time reporting on China since 1989 (pictured in Tiananmen Square, 2016)

Altogether, then, 2026 looks like being an important year. China's strength will grow, and its strategy for taking over Taiwan - Xi Jinping's great ambition - will become clearer. It may be that the war in Ukraine will be settled, but on terms that are favourable to President Putin.

He may be free to come back for more Ukrainian territory when he's ready. And President Trump, even though his political wings could be clipped in November's mid-term elections, will distance the US from Europe even more.

From the European point of view, the outlook could scarcely be more gloomy.

If you thought World War Three would be a shooting-match with nuclear weapons, think again. It's much more likely to be a collection of diplomatic and military manoeuvres, which will see autocracy flourish. It could even threaten to break up the Western alliance.

And the process has already started.

source: commonspace.eu with BBC (London).

photo: John Simpson

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners
FREE SPEECH IS UNCOMFORTABLE

Activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah apologises for historic tweets - but says some were 'misunderstood'

The historic social media posts by Alaa Abd El-Fattah emerged after he returned to the UK on Boxing Day following several years of imprisonment in Egypt.



Monday 29 December 2025 
SKY NEWS





PM under pressure over activist



A British-Egyptian activist has apologised "unequivocally" for "shocking and hurtful" past social media posts in which he appears to call for violence against "Zionists" - but said some had been "completely twisted".

The historic tweets by Alaa Abd El-Fattah emerged after he returned to the UK on Boxing Day following several years of imprisonment in Egypt.

"I am shaken that, just as I am being reunited with my family for the first time in 12 years, several historic tweets of mine have been republished and used to question and attack my integrity and values, escalating to calls for the revocation of my citizenship," he said in a statement on Monday.

"Looking at the tweets now - the ones that were not completely twisted out of their meaning - I do understand how shocking and hurtful they are, and for that I unequivocally apologise."

Alaa Abd El-Fattah was pardoned in September 2025. Pic: AP

Mr Abd El-Fattah was a leading voice in Egypt's 2011 Arab Spring uprising and went on hunger strikes behind bars.


He was most recently detained in September 2019 and sentenced to five years in prison in December 2021, on charges of spreading false news.

UN investigators branded his imprisonment a breach of international law, and both Conservative and Labour governments lobbied for his release.

Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi pardoned the activist earlier this year and he flew to the UK to reunite with his young son, who lives in Brighton, last week.

He had been granted UK citizenship in December 2021 under Boris Johnson, reportedly through his UK-born mother.


Mr Abd El-Fattah with his sister after his release from prison. Pic: Twitter/@monasosh

'I take allegations of antisemitism very seriously'

After the historic social media posts came to light, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called for the home secretary to look into whether the activist can be stripped of his UK citizenship and deported.

In his statement, the activist highlighted that he is now a middle-aged father, but said the posts were "mostly expressions of a young man's anger and frustrations in a time of regional crises" and the "rise of police brutality against Egyptian youth".

He continued: "I particularly regret some that were written as part of online insult battles with the total disregard for how they read to other people. I should have known better."

Mr Abd El-Fattah said he took allegations of antisemitism "very seriously" and that some of the tweets had been "misunderstood, seemingly in bad faith".

A tweet being shared to allege homophobia was actually ridiculing homophobia, he said, while another had been "wrongly interpreted to suggest Holocaust denial - but in fact the exchange shows that I was clearly mocking Holocaust denial".

Mr Abd El-Fattah said he had been looking forward to celebrating his son's birthday with him for the first time since 2012, when he was just a year old.

He missed those birthdays because of his "consistent promotion of equality, justice and secular democracy", he said. This included "publicly rejecting anti-Jewish speech in Egypt, often at risk to myself, defence of LGBTQ rights, defence of Egyptian Christians, and campaigning against police torture and brutality - all at great risk".

Mr Abd El-Fattah said it had been "painful" to see some people who supported calls for his release now feeling regret.

"Whatever they feel now, they did the right thing," he continued. "Standing up for human rights and a citizen unjustly imprisoned is something honourable, and I will always be grateful for that solidarity."

He finished by saying he had "received huge empathy and solidarity from people across the UK, enough to win me my freedom, and I will be forever grateful for this".

A Foreign Office spokesperson said it had been a "long-standing priority under successive governments" to work for Mr Abd El-Fattah's release, "and to see him reunited with his family in the UK".

However, the government condemns the "abhorrent" historic tweets, the spokesperson added.

It is understood Prime Minister Keir Starmer was not aware of the social media posts when he celebrated Mr Abd El-Fattah's returned to the UK.



Myanmar pro-military party claims early wins in junta-run election


A senior figure in Myanmar’s dominant pro-military party says it is winning a majority of seats in the first phase of elections organised by the ruling junta, a vote widely condemned by democracy groups and Western governments.

Myanmar's dominant pro-military party is "winning a majority" in the first phase of junta-run elections, a party source told AFP on Monday, after democracy watchdogs warned the poll would entrench military rule.

The armed forces snatched power in a 2021 coup, but on Sunday opened voting in a phased, month-long election they pledged would return power to the people.

The massively popular but dissolved party of democratic figurehead Aung San Suu Kyi did not appear on ballots, and she has remained jailed since the military putsch, which triggered a civil war.

Campaigners, Western diplomats and the United Nations' rights chief have condemned the vote — citing a stark crackdown on dissent and a candidate list stacked with military allies.


Voters line up to cast their ballots at a polling station, in Naypyitaw, Myanmar, Sunday, December 28, 2025.

"The USDP is winning a majority of seats around the country according to different reports," said a party official in the capital Naypyidaw, requesting anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media.

Official results have yet to be posted by Myanmar's Union Election Commission and there are two more phases scheduled for January 11 and 25.

The military overturned the results of the last poll in 2020 after Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, trounced the Union Solidarity and Development Party.

RelatedTRT World - Myanmar to hold first election since coup as critics warn it will entrench military rule


The military and USDP then alleged massive voter fraud, claims which international monitors say were unfounded.

But on Sunday, military chief Min Aung Hlaing - who has ruled by diktat for the past five years - said the armed forces could be trusted to hand back power to a civilian-led government.

"We guarantee it to be a free and fair election," he told reporters after casting his vote in Naypyidaw. "It's organised by the military, we can't let our name be tarnished."

Officials of the Union Election Commission prepare to count votes at a polling station, in Naypyitaw, Myanmar, Sunday, December 28, 2025. / AP

The military coup triggered a civil war as pro-democracy activists formed guerrilla units, fighting alongside ethnic minority armies that had long resisted central rule.

Sunday's election was scheduled to take place in 102 of the country's 330 townships - the largest of the three rounds of voting.

But amid the war, the military has acknowledged that elections cannot happen in almost one in five lower house constituencies.
Top diplomats of China, Cambodia and Thailand meet as Beijing seeks to strengthen role in dispute

TRUMP WAS NOWHERE AROUND

By AP
Dec 29, 2025




In this photo released by Agence Kampuchea Press (AKP), Cambodia's Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn, left, Thai counterpart Sihasak Phuangketkeow, right, and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi pose in Yunnan province, China, Dec. 29. AP-Yonhap

HONG KONG (AP) — Foreign ministers from Cambodia and Thailand convened with their Chinese counterpart on Monday as the Beijing government, building on its expanding presence in the world diplomatic arena, sought to play a stronger mediating role in the violent border dispute between the two Southeast Asian countries.

The trilateral meeting, held in a southwestern Chinese province north of the contested border, came two days after Thailand and Cambodia signed a fresh ceasefire agreement to end weeks of fighting that killed more than 100 people and forced hundreds of thousands to be evacuated on both sides of the border.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for joint efforts to promote regional peace, stability and development, which is language typical for China in such situations.


“Allowing the flames of war to be reignited is absolutely not what the people of the two countries want, and not what China, as your friend, wants to see. Therefore, we should resolutely look ahead and move forward,” Wang said during the meeting Monday in Yunnan province.

It was noteworthy that the meeting was held there, nearer to the dispute and to Southeast Asia, rather than in Beijing, the Chinese capital and seat of government about 1,300 miles (2,500 kilometers) northeast.

Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn said he believed the latest ceasefire would last and would create an environment for both countries to work on their relations and resume the previously agreed-upon ways to settle their differences, according to a Chinese interpreter.

Thai Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow also expressed hopes for peace with neighboring countries, the interpreter said.

The Thai Foreign Ministry later said in a statement that China volunteered to be a platform to support peace between the two countries and Thailand reiterated that adjustments of ties should be conducted “on a step-by-step basis.”


“The Thai side will consider the release of 18 soldiers after the 72 hours ceasefire observation period and requests that Cambodia facilitate the return of Thais along the border,” the ministry said.



This handout photo taken and released by Agence Kampuchea Press (AKP) shows China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi, center, speaking as Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Prak Sokhonn, left, who is also the country's Foreign Minister, and Thailand's Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow listen during a meeting in China's Yunnan province, Dec. 29. AFP-Yonhap

A day after the fresh pact was signed, Sihasak and Prak Sokhonn held separate meetings with Wang on Sunday, the first day of the two-day gathering.

The meetings represented China's latest efforts to strengthen its role as an international mediator and, in particular, its influence in Asian regional crises. As China grows and becomes more of an economic and political force regionally and globally, Beijing has spent the past decade and more working in various ways to increase its voice as a third party in diplomatic matters.

The two Southeast Asian countries originally reached a ceasefire in July. It was brokered by Malaysia and pushed through under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened to withhold trade privileges unless Thailand and Cambodia agreed. The preliminary pact was followed by a more detailed October agreement .

But Thailand and Cambodia carried on a bitter propaganda war, with minor, cross-border violence continuing. The tensions erupted into heavy fighting in early December.

The Saturday agreement calls for Thailand, after the ceasefire has held for 72 hours, to repatriate 18 Cambodian soldiers who have been held prisoner since the earlier fighting in July. Their release has been a major demand of the Cambodian side.

The agreement also calls on both sides to adhere to international agreements against deploying land mines , a major concern of Thailand.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet on Monday issued a statement to all Cambodian combatants along the border with Thailand.

“Even though we can still fight," he said, “as a small country we still have nothing to gain from prolonging the fighting for a long time.”
US pledges $2B for UN humanitarian aid amid sweeping foreign assistance cuts

Critics say the Western aid cutbacks have been shortsighted, driven millions toward hunger, displacement or disease, and harmed US soft power around the world.

T
he cuts have major implications for UN affiliates like the International Organization for Migration, the World Food Program and refugee agency UNHCR. / AP

The United States on Monday announced a $2 billion pledge for UN humanitarian aid as President Donald Trump’s administration continues to slash US foreign assistance and warns United Nations agencies to “adapt, shrink or die” in a time of new financial realities.

The money is a small fraction of what the US has contributed in the past but reflects what the administration believes is a generous amount that will maintain the United States’ status as the world’s largest humanitarian donor.

The pledge creates an umbrella fund from which money will be doled out to individual agencies and priorities, a key part of US demands for drastic changes across the world body that have alarmed many humanitarian workers and led to severe reductions in programs and services.

The $2 billion is only a sliver of traditional US humanitarian funding for UN-backed programs, which has run as high as $17 billion annually in recent years, according to UN data. US officials say only $8-$10 billion of that has been in voluntary contributions. The United States also pays billions in annual dues related to its UN membership.

Critics say the Western aid cutbacks have been shortsighted, driven millions toward hunger, displacement or disease, and harmed US soft power around the world.


RelatedTRT World - UN refugee agency hails record early donations amid US aid cuts


A year of crisis in aid

The move caps a crisis year for many UN organisations like its refugee, migration and food aid agencies. The Trump administration has already cut billions in US foreign aid, prompting them to slash spending, aid projects and thousands of jobs. Other traditional Western donors have reduced outlays, too.

The announced US pledge for aid programs of the United Nations, the world’s top provider of humanitarian assistance and biggest recipient of US humanitarian aid money, takes shape in a preliminary deal with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, run by Tom Fletcher, a former British diplomat and government official.

Even as the US pulls back its aid, needs have ballooned across the world: Famine has been recorded this year in parts of conflict-ridden Sudan and Gaza, and floods, drought and natural disasters that many scientists attribute to climate change have taken many lives or driven thousands from their homes.

The cuts will have major implications for UN affiliates like the International Organization for Migration, the World Food Program and the refugee agency UNHCR. They have already received billions less from the US this year than under annual allocations from the previous Biden administration, or even during Trump’s first term.

Now, the idea is that Fletcher’s office, which last year set in motion a “humanitarian reset” to improve efficiency, accountability and effectiveness of money spent, will become a funnel for US and other aid money that can then be redirected to those agencies, rather than scattered US contributions to a variety of individual appeals for aid.

US seeks aid consolidation

The United States wants to see “more consolidated leadership authority” in UN aid delivery systems, said a senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity to provide details before the announcement at the US diplomatic mission in Geneva.

Under the plan, Fletcher and his coordination office “are going to control the spigot” on how money is distributed to agencies, the official said.

“This humanitarian reset at the United Nations should deliver more aid with fewer tax dollars, providing more focused, results-driven assistance aligned with US foreign policy,” said US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz.

US officials say the $2 billion is just a first outlay to help fund OCHA’s annual appeal for money, announced earlier this month. Fletcher, noting the upended aid landscape, already slashed the request this year. Other traditional UN donors like Britain, France, Germany and Japan have reduced aid allocations and sought reforms this year.

“The agreement requires the UN to consolidate humanitarian functions to reduce bureaucratic overhead, unnecessary duplication, and ideological creep,” the State Department said in a statement. “Individual UN agencies will need to adapt, shrink, or die.”

“Nowhere is reform more important than the humanitarian agencies, which perform some of the UN’s most critical work,” the department added. “Today’s agreement is a critical step in those reform efforts, balancing President Trump’s commitment to remaining the world’s most generous nation, with the imperative to bring reform to the way we fund, oversee, and integrate with UN humanitarian efforts.”

At its core, the reform project will help establish pools of funding that can be directed either to specific crises or countries in need. A total of 17 countries will be targeted initially, including Bangladesh, Congo, Haiti, Syria and Ukraine.

One of the world’s most desperate countries, Afghanistan, is not included, nor are the Palestinian territories, which officials say will be covered by money stemming from Trump’s as-yet-incomplete Gaza peace plan.

The project, months in the making, stems from Trump’s longtime view that the world body has great promise, but has failed to live up to it, and has, in his eyes, drifted too far from its original mandate to save lives while undermining American interests, promoting radical ideologies and encouraging wasteful, unaccountable spending.

Fletcher praised the deal, saying in a statement, “At a moment of immense global strain, the United States is demonstrating that it is a humanitarian superpower, offering hope to people who have lost everything.”

SOURCE:AP

Unfounded theories blame Australia bushfires on smart meters and lasers

Bushfires destroyed more than a dozen houses along the Central Coast of Australia's New South Wales during a blistering December heatwave, prompting conspiracy theories online that the blazes were triggered by smart meters -- digital energy use meters -- or laser weapons, as nearby plants were "mostly untouched". However, a police investigation has not identified any evidence suggesting the fires were a deliberate act. Authorities also told AFP plenty of vegetation burned during the blaze and the flames torching the homes came from bushland embers.

"According to several firefighters and eyewitness accounts, the fires are reportedly leaping from house to house while leaving nearby trees and surrounding vegetation mostly untouched," reads a Facebook post from an Australia-based user on December 10.

It goes on to suggest that smart power meters -- an upgrade from older models that require manual readings -- or directed energy weapons, such as high-energy lasers, "could be the ignition source". It also adds that "the government will blame 'Climate Change' on the devastation". 

The post, which was shared more than 400 times, includes a picture of a house ablaze, with embedded text reading "NSW wildfires destroy homes, but skip vegetation?"

More than 50 bushfires burned in New South Wales on December 6, destroying a number of homes on the state's mid-north coast (archived link).

Bushfires are a common occurrence in Australia's summer months, and it is not unheard of for dozens of blazes to burn through sparsely populated areas on hot and windy days.

Image
Screenshot of the false Facebook post taken on December 29, 2025, with the red X added by AFP

The same image with the embedded text was shared in similar posts by several Australia-based users on Facebook and X, and also circulated widely in Canada and the United States

"The 'smart meters' are being ignited, making way for the 'smart cities'!" commented one user, while another said, "DEW weapon for sure, fire doesn't jump over dry grass and trees and burn houses". 

The claims repeat unfounded conspiracy theories blaming smart meters -- which are now being rolled out nationally in Australia -- and directed energy weapons for major wildfires (archived link). 

The New South Wales government says the meters meet strict health and safety standards set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). 

AFP has debunked similar false claims surrounding the Los Angeles fires in early 2025 and the Hawaii wildfires in August 2023. 

In a December 10 press release, NSW police said its investigators determined the fire was "likely to have originated in bushland on Nimbin Avenue", situated in the coastal Koolewong suburb (archived link). 

"Forensic examinations at the point of origin have not identified any evidence suggesting the use of ignitable liquids or a deliberate act," the police statement said.

Burned vegetation

A spokesperson for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service also told AFP on December 24 the claims that vegetation was "skipped" by the fires was "not correct" (archived link). 

"There was vegetation that did burn. The size of the fires was 129 hectares."

A spokesperson for the NSW Police also confirmed to AFP in a December 26 email: "There was considerable vegetation destroyed in the fire. It's clearly seen in the news vision."

reverse image search revealed that the circulating picture is similar to Sky News footage of the bushfires in Koolewong published on December 7, where the burning house is shown around the 15-second mark (archived link).

Image
Screenshot comparison between the false post (left) and Sky News footage on YouTube, with the red X added by AFP

Later in the Sky News video, there is footage of razed vegetation next to the house, leaving a blackened mass with nearby trees missing leaves. 

Image
Screenshot of the Sky News footage taken December 26, 2025, 
showing smouldering and burned trees on the bottom right side of the frame

Other photos and videos published by local media show burned bushland alongside affected homes in Koolewong (archived herehere and here).

After 2025 recognition of a Palestinian state, what's next ?


The recognition of the State of Palestine by several Western countries in September, at France’s initiative, stood out as one of the key diplomatic moments of 2025. Largely symbolic for Palestinians, the move raised questions about whether it could break a decades-long geopolitical stalemate.


Issued on: 29/12/2025 
FRANCE24
By:Marc DAOU


This file photo shows Palestinians flying their flags during a rally in support for Gaza and celebrating the latest western nations recognitions of the Palestinian state ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meetings, in the West Bank city of Ramallah on September 23, 2025. © Nasser Nasser, AP

The Palestinian cause scored a symbolic victory in 2025 as several Western countries that had long shown caution or ambiguity formally recognised the State of Palestine.

In September, on the sidelines of the 80th United Nations General Assembly in New York, France, Britain, Portugal, Canada, Australia and Belgium, among others, announced they were recognising Palestine, as Israel continued its war in Gaza and stepped up settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.
France takes the lead

France played a driving role in the unprecedented wave of recognitions, prompting strong opposition from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who rejected the creation of a Palestinian state and described it as "a huge reward for terrorism", referring to Hamas and the October 7 attacks.


After years of rhetorical support for a Palestinian state, conditioned on prior peace with Israel, Paris ultimately decided to move to formal recognition on September 22, when President Emmanuel Macron addressed the UN General Assembly.

The decision was presented as an explicit endorsement of the two-state solution, long viewed as the central framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"This recognition is unquestionably a very important moment in the history of this conflict, as well as for French diplomacy, particularly in the way it was carried out," said Jean-Paul Chagnollaud, emeritus professor and honorary president of the Institute for Research and Studies on the Mediterranean and the Middle East (IREMMO). "There is indeed a symbolic dimension, but it is more than that, because it is a significant political act."

"France sought to rally part of the Western world that had previously been reluctant," he added, noting that the broader French initiative led to the New York Declaration, signed by 142 states.

France’s recognition formed part of a wider diplomatic push, including an international conference co-chaired with Saudi Arabia that culminated on September 12 in the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the New York Declaration, which described recognition of the Palestinian state as "essential and indispensable".

The declaration laid out what was described as an "irreversible" roadmap for a political settlement based on the two-state solution and excluded Hamas from any political role in Gaza.

"Ultimately, this kind of recognition comes down to the decision of one person – the president – who, like anyone else, has doubts and hesitations," Chagnollaud said. "Last spring, I wouldn’t have bet a euro on France recognising the (Palestinian) state. But what Emmanuel Macron saw in April, when he travelled close to Gaza during a visit to Egypt, and the atrocities then being committed, pushed him to act."
Limited effects

Despite opening the way for closer bilateral ties and increasing pressure on the Palestinian Authority to pursue reforms, the recognitions remain largely insufficient given the realities on the ground.

Even if France said the move increased pressure on Israel to accept the Gaza ceasefire demanded by US President Donald Trump a couple of weeks after the UN General Assembly, recognition has not ended the occupation, halted settlement expansion or stopped violence against Palestinian civilians. Nor has it sidelined Hamas, which continues to control the Gaza strip.

Without concrete implementation of the New York Declaration, stronger pressure on the Israeli government and a clear US willingness to rebalance power dynamics, the recognitions risk remaining largely symbolic, with little impact on Palestinians’ daily lives.

"The effects are clearly limited and, in some respects, counterproductive," Chagnollaud said. "They are limited because recognition has no direct impact, and because France and the Europeans lack leverage on the ground, unlike the Americans, who are clearly opposed to this recognition and to the New York Declaration."

"The move is counterproductive if all these states that have taken the step of recognition stop there,” he added. “And unfortunately, that is the case since they have not lifted a finger to jointly impose a reality on the ground, for example through sanctions against Israel, which has waged a war that has annihilated an entire society and is doing everything, including in the West Bank, to undermine the very idea of a Palestinian state."

The diplomatic momentum was soon overshadowed by Donald Trump’s peace plan, which succeeded in imposing a ceasefire in Gaza but was structured around US and Israeli security priorities, leaving intact the grievances that fuel violence and undermine prospects for lasting peace.

"We are heading towards the crushing of the Palestinian question, both literally and figuratively,” Chagnollaud said. “I even think that in 2026 we will witness one of the worst periods in Palestinian history."

This article was translated from the original in French by Anaëlle Jonah.
SHAMEFUL

Panama tears down China ‘friendship’ monument amid US canal control claims

The removal of the Chinese monument near the Panama Canal has exposed rising political and diplomatic tensions surrounding control of the waterway.

China described the act as harmful to relations with Panama. / Reuters Archive

Near the entrance to the Panama Canal, a monument to China's contributions to the interoceanic waterway was torn down Saturday night by order of local authorities.

The move comes as US President Donald Trump has made threats in recent months to retake control of the canal, claiming Beijing has too much influence in its operations.

In a surprising move that leaders in Panama and China have criticised, the mayor's office of the locality of Arraijan ordered the demolition of the monument built in 2004 to symbolise friendship between the countries.

The mayor's office said in a statement that the monument, which overlooked the waterway spanning the Bridge of the Americas, had structural damage that posed a "risk."

But Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino said Sunday that "there is no justification whatsoever for the barbarity committed," calling it "an unforgivable act of irrationality."

After personally inspecting the demolition, China's ambassador to Panama Xu Xueyuan said it was a "great pain for bilateral friendship," noting the insult to 300,000 Chinese-Panamanians.

Some members of the Chinese community witnessed the destruction, but police prevented them from reaching the lookout to stop it, according to videos published by local media.

In a video posted to X, the Chinese embassy called for a "thorough investigation" of the case and to "severely sanction" the "illegal, improper and vandalistic" actions.


RelatedTRT World - China clashes with Trump over Panama canal port deal


Vital for US, China

The US and China are the main users of the 80-kilometre canal, which sees the passage of five percent of global maritime trade.

The Panama Canal was under US control from 1914 to 1999, when it was taken over by Panama.

Trump has demanded preferential conditions for its use by US vessels.

Hong Kong-based Hutchison Holdings operates two ports on the Pacific and the Atlantic, but has agreed to sell them to US-based BlackRock.
RelatedTRT World - Panama pulls out of China's Belt and Road Initiative: President Mulino

SOURCE:AFP
Reclaiming LGBTQI+ Rights in Africa

December 29, 2025
author: Thapelo Moeketsi



A 2025 report by the European Parliamentary Research Service revealed that 31 countries in Africa still criminalize same-sex relationships. In September 2025, the number rose to 32, as Burkina Faso criminalized homosexuality. The hostility that the LGBTQI+ community in Africa faces stems from cultural and legal biases. Identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other queer identity (LGBTQI+) is illegal in most parts of the continent. Laws prohibiting same-sex relationships largely date back to the colonial era and continue to endanger the LGBTQI+ community. To end the hostility, African countries must repeal colonial-era laws and foster inclusion for the LGBTQI+ community. Local communities must confront harmful beliefs influencing homophobia and support survivors of LGBTQI-related violence.

Repealing colonial-era laws in Africa is necessary for progress and prosperity. A 2022 study by Ayodele Sogunro found that homophobia is not indigenous to Africa. Colonial authorities introduced and enforced homophobia through legal systems aimed at dividing and controlling Africans. Repealing these laws would be an opportunity for African countries to replace inherited oppression with African values of justice, community, and shared humanity. This will further recognise and restore the dignity of people identifying as LGBTQI+. It is with dignity that people can thrive and reach their potential, and contribute to the development of their communities and countries.

The progress realized in a few African countries offers hope for the continent. Angola, Mozambique, and Botswana have already repealed anti-LGBTQI+ laws. However, Ghana and Mali are moving in the opposite direction and proposing harsher measures. These countries and other African countries still hostile toward the LGBTQI+ community should follow the examples of Angola, Mozambique, and Botswana. They must realize that being outside the heterosexual norm is completely natural and normal. Laws and policies should not exclude people and make them feel uncomfortable because of their gender identity and sexual orientation. Rather, they should acknowledge ‌LGBTQI+ identities and allow individuals to express their sexual orientations freely.


…homophobia is not indigenous to Africa. Colonial authorities introduced and enforced homophobia through legal systems aimed at dividing and controlling Africans.

Education is critical to reshaping the views of Africans about LGBTQI+ and same-sex relationships. Schools should encourage empathy, diversity, and inclusion for the LGBTQI+ community. As the Nigerian writer, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, said, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.” Adichie’s statement reflects how society reduces LGBTQI+ to a single harmful narrative, overlooking their full humanity and diverse experiences. This stereotypical narrative also fuels misunderstanding and hostility towards the LGBTQI+ community. Inclusive education fosters empathy, understanding, and an accepting society.

Broadening perspectives within and beyond the classroom is necessary. Schools should introduce critical discourses that challenge stereotypes about LGBTQI+. Schools should also be supportive spaces for LGBTQI+ students to express themselves freely and be vocal about their stories and experiences without the risk of exclusion or the influence of misinformation and bias. Educators can influence the acceptance or rejection of the LGBTQI+ community. They should encourage respect for LGBTQI+ identities, creating a safe environment for the community. Beyond the classroom, scholarship and research should encourage inclusive discourse and discourage anti-LGBTQI+ ideologies.

Victims and survivors of LGBTQI-related violence need support. LGBTQI+ individuals often face unjust arrests, forced anal examinations, and ‌so-called corrective rape. Victims of these acts deserve justice, protection, and healing. Governments must implement policies that prohibit such practices and instead hold perpetrators accountable. Justice must be unbiased, with a commitment toward protecting individual dignity regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.


Africans should embrace the Ubuntu concept, which encourages seeing one another as a community, not reducing individuals’ identities to whom they choose to love or be intimate with.

Support services—legal and psychosocial—should be readily available to the survivors of these inhumane acts. Private hospitals and healthcare providers can support LGBTQI+ survivors by offering safe, confidential, and inclusive medical care. Collaborating with LGBTQI+ advocacy organizations can also enhance staff training and improve the quality of care for these survivors. Such collaborations can also help establish clear referral pathways, ensuring survivors receive comprehensive support that addresses their medical, legal, and emotional needs.

Change must begin at the community level. African communities must embrace their values of shared humanity and compassion to support and protect everyone equally. Perpetrators of harmful practices often seek justification in cultural or religious traditions. These traditions should not justify discrimination. The values of respect, care, and togetherness enrich African traditions. These values prevail, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. By reviving these inclusive values through community dialogue and reorientation, societies can challenge stigma and foster safer environments for the LGBTQI+ community.

Traditional and religious leaders must help build inclusive communities. They can become powerful voices for acceptance and understanding. Addressing homophobia does not require adopting foreign ideologies. It should involve restoring the ideals of African societies that once valued harmony, inclusion, and mutual respect. Africans should embrace the Ubuntu concept, which encourages seeing one another as a community, not reducing individuals’ identities to whom they choose to love or be intimate with.

Africa’s rejection of LGBTQI+ people builds on colonial laws, fear of losing traditional or religious control, and misconceptions. Africa must restore justice and compassion and build a continent where everyone lives openly and safely.

Thapelo Moeketsi is a writing fellow at African Liberty. He is on X @Wil_Moeketsi.

Article was first published by Mamba Online.

Photo by Sophie Popplewell on Unsplash.


How Deepfakes Could Lead to Doomsday

America’s Nuclear Warning Systems Aren’t Ready for AI

STILL USING FLOPPY DISKS!


Erin D. Dumbacher
December 29, 2025
FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, policymakers and strategists have tried to prevent a country from deploying nuclear weapons by mistake. But the potential for accidents remains as high as it was during the Cold War. In 1983, a Soviet early warning system erroneously indicated that a U.S. nuclear strike on the Soviet Union was underway; such a warning could have triggered a catastrophic Soviet counterattack. The fate was avoided only because the on-duty supervisor, Stanislav Petrov, determined that the alarm was false. Had he not, Soviet leadership would have had reason to fire the world’s most destructive weapons at the United States.

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence has exacerbated threats to nuclear stability. One fear is that a nuclear weapons state might delegate the decision to use nuclear weapons to machines. The United States, however, has introduced safeguards to ensure that humans continue to make the final call over whether to launch a strike. According to the 2022 National Defense Strategy, a human will remain “in the loop” for any decisions to use, or stop using, a nuclear weapon. And U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed in twin statements that “there should be human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.”

Yet AI poses another insidious risk to nuclear security. It makes it easier to create and spread deepfakes—convincingly altered videos, images, or audio that are used to generate false information about people or events. And these techniques are becoming ever more sophisticated. A few weeks after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a widely shared deepfake showed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky telling Ukrainians to set down their weapons; in 2023, a deepfake led people to falsely believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin interrupted state television to declare a full-scale mobilization. In a more extreme scenario, a deepfake could convince the leader of a nuclear weapons state that a first strike from an adversary was underway or an AI-supported intelligence platform could raise false alarms of a mobilization, or even a dirty bomb attack, by an adversary.

The Trump administration wants to harness AI for national security. In July, it released an action plan calling for AI to be used “aggressively” across the Department of Defense. In December, the department unveiled GenAI.mil, a platform with AI tools for employees. But as the administration embeds AI in national security infrastructure, it will be crucial for policymakers and systems designers to be careful about the role machines play in the early phases of nuclear decision-making. Until engineers can prevent problems inherent to AI, such as hallucinations and spoofing—in which large language models predict inaccurate patterns or facts—the U.S. government must ensure that humans continue to control nuclear early warning systems. Other nuclear weapons states should do the same.

CASCADING CRISES

Today, President Donald Trump uses a phone to access deepfakes; he sometimes reposts them on social media, as do many of his close advisers. As the lines become blurred between real and fake information, there is a growing possibility that such deepfakes could infect high-stakes national security decisions, including on nuclear weapons.


If misinformation can deceive the U.S. president for even a few minutes, it could spell disaster for the world. According to U.S. law, a president does not need to confer with anyone to order the use of nuclear weapons for either a retaliatory attack or a first strike. U.S. military officials stand at the ready to deploy the planes, submarines, and ground-based missiles that carry nuclear warheads. A U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile can reach its target within a half hour—and once such a missile is launched, no one can recall it.

Deepfakes could help create pretexts for war.

Both U.S. and Russian nuclear forces are prepared to “launch on warning,” meaning that they can be deployed as soon as enemy missiles are detected heading their way. That leaves just minutes for a leader to evaluate whether an adversary’s nuclear attack has begun. (Under current U.S. policy, the president has the option to delay a decision until after an adversary’s nuclear weapon strikes the United States.) If the U.S. early warning system detects a threat to the United States, U.S. officials will try to verify the attack using both classified and unclassified sources. They might look at satellite data for activity at known military facilities, monitor recent statements from foreign leaders, and check social media and foreign news sources for context and on-the-ground accounts. Military officers, civil servants, and political appointees must then decide which information to communicate up the chain and how it is presented.

AI-driven misinformation could spur cascading crises. If AI systems are used to interpret early warning data, they could hallucinate an attack that isn’t real—putting U.S. officials in a similar position to the one Petrov was in four decades ago. Because the internal logic of AI systems is opaque, humans are often left in the dark as to why AI came to a particular conclusion. Research shows that people with an average level of familiarity with AI tend to defer to machine outputs rather than checking for bias or false positives, even when it comes to national security. Without extensive training, tools, and operating processes that account for AI’s weaknesses, advisers to White House decision-makers might default to assuming—or at least to entertaining—the possibility that AI-generated content is accurate.

Deepfakes that are transmitted on open-source media are nearly as dangerous. After watching a deepfake video, an American leader might, for example, misinterpret Russian missile tests as the beginning of offensive strikes or mistake Chinese live-fire exercises as an attack on U.S. allies. Deepfakes could help create pretexts for war, gin up public support for a conflict, or sow confusion.

A CRITICAL EYE

In July, the Trump administration released an AI action plan that called for aggressive deployment of AI tools across the Department of Defense, the world’s largest bureaucracy. AI has proved useful in making parts of the military more efficient. Machine learning makes it easier to schedule maintenance of navy destroyers. AI technology embedded in autonomous munitions, such as drones, can allow soldiers to stand back from the frontlines. And AI translation tools help intelligence officers parse data on foreign countries. AI could even be helpful in some other standard intelligence collection tasks, such as identifying distinctions between pictures of bombers parked in airfields from one day to the next.

Implementing AI across military systems does not need to be all or nothing. There are areas that should be off-limits for AI, including nuclear early warning systems and command and control, in which the risks of hallucination and spoofing outweigh the benefits that AI-powered software could bring. The best AI systems are built on cross-checked and comprehensive datasets. Nuclear early warning systems lack both because there have not been any nuclear attacks since the ones on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any AI nuclear detection system would likely have to train on existing missile test and space tracking data plus synthetic data. Engineers would need to program defenses against hallucinations or inaccurate confidence assessments—significant technical hurdles.


It may be tempting to replace checks from highly trained staff with AI tools or to use AI to fuse various data sources to speed up analysis, but removing critical human eyes can lead to errors, bias, and misunderstandings. Just as the Department of Defense requires meaningful human control of autonomous drones, it should also require that each element of nuclear early warning and intelligence technology meet an even higher standard. AI data integration tools should not replace human operators who report on incoming ballistic missiles. Efforts to confirm early warning of a nuclear launch from satellite or radar data should remain only partially automated. And participants in critical national security conference calls should consider only verified and unaltered data.

In July 2025, the Department of Defense requested funds from Congress to add novel technologies to nuclear command, control, and communications. The U.S. government would be best served by limiting AI and automation integration to cybersecurity, business processes and analytics, and simple tasks, such as ensuring backup power turns on when needed.

A VINTAGE STRATEGY

Today, the danger of nuclear war is greater than it has been in decades. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, China is rapidly expanding its arsenal, North Korea now has the ability to send ICBMs to the United States, and policies preventing proliferation are wavering. Against this backdrop, it is even more important to ensure that humans, not machines trained on poor or incomplete data, are judging the actions, intent, and aims of an adversary.

Intelligence agencies need to get better at tracking the provenance of AI-derived information and standardize how they relay to policymakers when data is augmented or synthetic. For example, when the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency uses AI to generate intelligence, it adds a disclosure to the report if the content is machine-generated. Intelligence analysts, policymakers, and their staffs should be trained to bring additional skepticism and fact-checking to content that is not immediately verifiable, just as many businesses are now vigilant against cyber spear phishing. And intelligence agencies need the trust of policymakers, who might be more inclined to believe what their own eyes and devices tell them—true or false—than what an intelligence assessment renders.

Experts and technologists should keep working to find ways to label and slow fraudulent information, images, and videos flowing through social media, which can influence policymakers. But given the difficulty of policing open-source information, it is all the more important for classified information to be accurate.


AI can already deceive leaders into seeing an attack that isn’t there.

The Trump administration’s updates to U.S. nuclear posture in the National Defense Strategy ought to guard against the likely and unwieldy AI information risks to nuclear weapons by reaffirming that a machine will never make a nuclear launch decision without human control. As a first step, all nuclear weapons states should agree that only humans will make nuclear use decisions. Then they should improve channels for crisis communications. A hotline for dialogue exists between Washington and Moscow but not between Washington and Beijing.

U.S. nuclear policy and posture have changed little since the 1980s, when leaders worried the Soviet Union would attack out of the blue. Policymakers then could not have wrapped their heads around how much misinformation would be delivered to the personal devices of the people in charge of nuclear weapons today. Both the legislative and executive branches should reevaluate nuclear weapons posture policies built for the Cold War. Policymakers might, for example, require future presidents to confer with congressional leaders before they launch a nuclear first strike or require a period of time for intelligence professionals to validate the information on which the decision is being based. Because the United States has capable second-strike options, accuracy should take precedence over speed.

AI already has the potential to deceive key decision-makers and members of the nuclear chain of command into seeing an attack that isn’t there. In the past, only authentic dialogue and diplomacy averted misunderstandings among nuclear armed states. Policies and practices should protect against the pernicious information risks that could ultimately lead to doomsday.


ERIN D. DUMBACHER is Stanton Nuclear Security Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.