Norway and UK Cement Anti-Submarine Alliance

Prime Ministers Jonas Støre and Sir Kier Starmer visited RAF Lossiemouth (Norwegian Government photo)

Published Dec 5, 2025 11:56 AM by The Maritime Executive

The British and Norwegian Prime Ministers flew to a miraculously rain-free RAF Lossiemouth in Northern Scotland on Thursday, December 4, to cement an alliance between the two countries, which has at its heart the curbing of the growing threat posed by Russian submarines.

Norway and the UK's defense links, particularly in the maritime domain, have been much enhanced recently by the presence alongside HMS Prince of Wales (R09) of the Norwegian Nansen Class frigate HNoMS Roald Amundsen (F311) from start to finish during the recently completed eight month deployment to the Indo-Pacific region, and also the invaluable support of the at-sea replenishment vessel HNoMS Maud (A530) which stepped in to compensate for a Royal Navy capability shortfall.

On August 31, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre announced that Norway would purchase for $13.5bn “at least five” British Type 26 frigates built by BAE for anti-submarine warfare purposes. The frigates for Norway and the UK will be built to identical specifications and operated as a joint capability. Maintenance and training facilities will be operated in common, with a new covered maintenance facility to be built in Harstad in northern Norway.

The visit to Lossiemouth was aimed at highlighting how British and Norwegian anti-submarine warfare P-8A Poseidon, based respectively at RAF Lossiemouth and Evenes in Norway's High North, will also operate together to cover the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap through which Russian Northern Fleet nuclear submarines must pass. The Norwegian and UK aircraft will also link in with US Navy P-8A aircraft operating from Keflavik in Iceland and Germany's P-8A squadron operating from the Nordholz Naval Airbase in North West Germany. The closer operational coordination comes after a 30 percent increase in detected Russian vessels threatening UK waters over the past two years.   

The UK-Norwegian Lunna House Agreement, formalizing this closer relationship, builds on 70 years of partnership and was named after the location in the Shetland Islands, which was the headquarters of the Norwegian Resistance during the Second World War.  The agreement was signed by Norway's Minister of Defense Tore O. Sandvik and Britain's Secretary of State for Defence John Healey in Downing Street earlier in the day.

The United Kingdom is using its diplomatic independence to build closer bespoke bilateral relationships post Brexit, whereas attempts to build a UK relationship with the European Union as a bloc have floundered in the face of disunity on a broader agreement within the European Union.

Other elements of the Lunna House Agreement cover an expansion of the Royal Marines' commitment to Norway into year-round training, building up of ammunition stocks, the UK adoption of Norwegian naval strike missiles, and collaboration on the development of Sting Ray torpedoes.
 

Macron takes on ‘French Murdoch’ in battle against disinformation

ANALYSIS


French President Emmanuel Macron has come under fire from the political right for suggesting that news outlets be labelled to distinguish those that comply with journalistic ethics from those that do not. Right-wing parties and media outlets owned by billionaire tycoon Vincent Bolloré are leading the charge, accusing Macron of seeking to establish an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”.


Issued on: 04/12/2025
FRANCE24
By: Barbara GABEL

French President Emmanuel Macron's remarks on disinformation at a Q&A session in Arras on November 19 have sparked fierce criticism – and disinformation aplenty. © François Lo Presti, AF


When media mogul Vincent Bolloré appointed a far-right editor to run the “Journal du Dimanche” (JDD) in the summer of 2023 – triggering a weeks-long strike at France’s best-known Sunday newspaper – the beleaguered newsroom appealed to President Emmanuel Macron not to let their paper “die in silence”.

“When the JDD, the newspaper of temperance and balance, goes on strike, it means the situation is truly bleak,” the striking journalists wrote in a letter to Macron, framing their tussle as part of a wider battle for press freedom. “Beyond the JDD, what is at stake is the independence of the press and the journalists who produce it – a pillar of democracy,” they said.

The JDD has duly lurched to the right under chief editor Geoffroy Lejeune, whose previous tenure at far-right magazine “Valeurs Actuelles” included a conviction for publishing racist hate speech.

Two years on, the addition of the JDD to Bolloré’s arch-conservative media empire has come back to haunt the French president, undermining his stated push to combat disinformation and the spread of fake news on social media.

France’s Murdoch? Right-wing media swoop threatens ‘pillar of French democracy’

The French president has made waves since he publicly called for a “labelling system created by media professionals”, designed to distinguish news outlets that comply with journalistic ethics standards from those that do not.

Speaking at a Q&A session with readers of a local French newspaper on November 19, Macron stressed that such a label would be based on peer review and not attributed by the state, adding that the state’s role “should never be to say, ‘This is true or false’”.

The reaction on the right has been scathing.

The JDD ran a front-page story on Sunday describing Macron’s campaign against disinformation as an attempt to “control information”. Its warning against the establishment of an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” fired the opening salvo in a right-wing campaign that has elicited a firm riposte from the Élysée Palace.
Between Pravda and Ministry of Truth

Other right-wing outlets owned by Bolloré – dubbed the “French Murdoch” due to his sprawling media stable and conservative politics – soon jumped on the JDD’s bandwagon, accusing Macron of attempts to muzzle the press.

Pascal Praud, the star anchor of Bolloré-owned broadcasters CNews and Europe 1, lambasted a “president unhappy with his treatment by the media and who wants to impose a single narrative”. He quipped that Macron was seeking a “middle ground” between the Soviet-era Communist Party newspaper “Pravda” (Truth) and the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s “1984".

Right-wing politicians quickly followed suit.

Speaking on CNews, far-right National Rally (RN) leader Jordan Bardella blasted the “authoritarian temptation” of a president “who has lost power and seeks to maintain it by controlling information”. Former interior minister Bruno Retailleau, who heads the conservative Les Républicains (LR) party, warned in a post on X that “no government has the right to filter the media or dictate the truth”.

Both Les Républicains and a splinter party led by hardliner Éric Ciotti have launched online petitions, with Retailleau’s party accusing Macron of undermining freedom of speech “under the guise of fighting fake news”.
Catch-22

The Élysée Palace has responded to the barrage head-on, in line with its recent practice of going public to call out fake news. Taking aim at Praud from CNews in a fact-checking video posted on its X account, Macron’s office lamented the fact that “talking about the fight against disinformation itself causes disinformation”.

The riposte mirrored past attempts to challenge the spread of fake news on social media, including unfounded rumours about the purchase of an Aston Martin and the false claim – pushed by pro-Russian bloggers – that Macron took cocaine with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer while on a train travelling to Kyiv.

“When fake news goes viral, we must go viral too,” French daily “Le Monde” quoted a Macron aide as saying earlier this week.

Analysts, however, have warned of a Catch-22 situation for the French president as he battles disinformation.

“It’s a constant dilemma: responding fuels the controversy, while remaining silent allows the rumour to flourish,” says Arnaud Mercier, a professor at Paris 2-Assas University, who has published a book on disinformation and manipulation in the media.

The French president and his wife Brigitte Macron have long been targeted by false online claims that she was assigned male at birth. Ten people went on trial in Paris in October, charged with online harassment of the French first lady, in the latest phase of a legal battle on both sides of the Atlantic.

Macron sees this fight as “a political and personal necessity in the face of the rise of false and manipulative content”, says Mercier. The trouble for the French president is that “he is so unpopular his words no longer carry the same weight”.

Strengthening trust in the media

The latest controversy comes as Macron has stepped up his push for greater regulation of social media, including calls for algorithm transparency and mechanisms to block fake news, as well as plans to ban social media for young people under 15 years old.

He is not the first to advocate for a “label” or professional certification to combat disinformation in the media. In fact, his remarks in November echoed the recommendations of a 2024 industry forum aimed at “strengthening public trust” in journalism.

Macron notably cited the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) promoted by advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF). According to its website, the JTI was developed by “130 media organisations, journalists’ associations, editors’ associations, regulatory and self-regulatory bodies and other stakeholders of the news industry to promote independent, pluralistic and reliable information”.

More than 2,000 news outlets around the world have JTI certification. They include AFP, AP, BBC World News and FRANCE 24’s parent group France Médias Monde.
Macron-Bolloré divorce?

In an interview with French daily “Libération”, media historian Alexis Lévrier argued that Macron’s mistake was to “want to embody this push for quality journalism” – a stance Lévrier said inherently leads to “suspicions of interference with the media” and “reinforces the very conspiracy theories (Macron) claims to fight”.

The row over media “labels” also signals the apparent failure of Macron’s strategy to avoid confrontation with Bolloré’s sprawling media empire, which has actively pushed the nationalist right in recent years, precipitating a rightward shift in French politics.

How Bolloré, the ‘French Murdoch’, carried Le Pen’s far right to the brink of power

When the head of Macron’s party in the National Assembly told lawmakers in 2023 to shun the JDD in the wake of Lejeune’s appointment, the French president refused to issue similar instructions for ministers. Instead, he encouraged ministers to flood Bolloré’s media outlets to counter the far right’s message.

As “Le Monde” wrote earlier this week, Macron notably cultivated ties with Praud to the point that he informed the CNews anchor of his ill-fated plan to call snap elections last year before his own prime minister.

Such efforts took a first hit in March when the Élysée Palace publicly denied a report in the JDD that alleged Macron was seeking to “scare” the French by playing up the threat from Moscow, amid growing concern about the pro-Russia stance espoused by several of Bolloré’s media outlets.

The latest row over disinformation has led “Le Monde” to ponder “whether the divorce between the president and the Bolloré media empire is now final”.

CNews, the JDD and other outlets in the Bolloré stable are now “exploiting the topic of freedom of expression in a cultural battle inspired by Trumpism and the alt-right, in which any regulation is denounced as an attack on fundamental freedoms”, says Mercier, describing it as a win-win strategy for the billionaire tycoon and his companies.

“If they end up getting some form of certification, they'll say they’re legitimate,” he explains.

“And if they don’t, they’ll pose as martyrs and rail against censorship.”

This article was adapted from the original in French by Benjamin Dodman.

Hugging the Russian bear? ReformUK’s Moscow links and the media response

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

29 November, 2025
Right-Wing Watch

In a healthy media landscape, the Gill conviction would have ignited a national reckoning about Reform UK, Russian influence, and the vulnerability of British politics to foreign money and disinformation. Instead, the story slipped quietly beneath the surface, predictably overshadowed by Budget coverage and right-wing rage directed at Rachel Reeves

.

If you want evidence that Britain’s overwhelmingly right-wing press is sympathetic to Reform UK, then look no further than its coverage of one of the most serious political scandals of the year – the conviction of Nathan Gill.

This week, Gill, former UKIP and Brexit Party MEP, and briefly leader of Reform in Wales in 2021, was sentenced to over ten years in prison after admitting eight counts of bribery linked to a pro-Russian influence campaign. Between December 2018 and July 2019, he accepted £40,000 to promote pro-Russia messaging, delivering statements in the European Parliament and placing opinion pieces in news outlets.

These were not minor lapses of judgement. They were actions that served the interests of a hostile foreign power. As Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told Gill: “Your misconduct has ramifications far beyond personal honour… It erodes public confidence in democracy when politicians succumb to financial inducement.”

Yet during Reform’s campaign in the October Senedd by-election, when Nigel Farage was asked about Gill, he expressed shock but downplayed the significance: “Every single political party has a bad apple … these things happen,” he shrugged.

But this “bad apple” was not an obscure activist. Gill was a senior MEP in Farage’s parties, a trusted ally, and Farage’s chosen leader of Reform in Wales, until he resigned after failing to win a Senedd seat.

Now imagine if a senior Labour figure had been caught taking Russian bribes. The right-wing press would have led with weeks of front-page outrage. Instead, when it happened to a senior figure in Reform UK, many outlets avoided the story almost entirely.

The Guardian and Mirror were among the few that treated the case with the seriousness it deserved, with front page leads on Starmer’s call for Farage to investigate possible Russian influence within Reform.

Meanwhile, the New York Times went further than much of the UK press, reporting that Met Commander Dominic Murphy said police were investigating several former UK lawmakers in the European Parliament who may also have been instructed by Gill’s paymaster, Oleg Voloshyn, a figure connected to high-level Russian power networks around Viktor Medvedchuk, Dmitry Medvedev and ultimately Vladimir Putin. Murphy said he could not name the ex-politicians but that several had attended voluntary interviews.

Under mounting pressure, Reform finally put forward former chair Zia Yusuf to respond. When Sir Trevor Phillips asked why voters should trust a party whose senior figure had taken Russian money, Yusuf offered no real explanation, brushing off the Gill affair as “ancient history.”

Questioned by ITV News on why he hadn’t launched a wider investigation to ensure there were no further pro-Russia links, something Labour is demanding, Nigel Farage gave a baffling reply:

“I haven’t got a police force… I can’t access your phone message… your emails. Unless I can do that, I can’t investigate. You’ve got to have somebody with investigatory powers.”

Pressed on what questions he had personally put to Reform officials about the allegations, he said only: “I’ve asked everybody: have you ever taken money you shouldn’t have taken from anybody, and no one said yes.”

It’s a remarkably weak justification, and raises the question of what, exactly, Farage is worried about.

Gill didn’t act alone

Contrary to Yusuf’s claim, the issue is far from “historic.” It may well be just the tip of the iceberg for a party that claims it is ready to govern. As the court reportedly heard, Gill did not act alone.

The story took another turn when David Coburn, a former Brexit Party MEP, former UKIP Scotland leader, and ally of Nigel Farage, was named in WhatsApp messages between Gill and Oleg Voloshyn. The messages refer to payments allegedly made to Gill and to another MEP identified only as “D” and “David.” Confronted by the BBC at his château in northern France, Coburn stalled his car as he tried to drive away. Before leaving, he denied ever being paid to make a pro-Russia speech.

Beyond the Gill scandal, Reform’s senior ranks have also had their own brushes with pro-Russia sentiment.

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey pointed to Farage’s paid appearances on Russia Today and his past praise of Putin, calling for a full investigation into Russian interference. Business secretary Peter Kyle likewise criticised Reform’s “Russia problem,” arguing that Farage has “often leant into Vladimir Putin” and deployed Kremlin talking points.

Farage disputes this, but the record tells an entirely different story. He has argued that the West, through NATO and “EU empire” expansion, provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2014, both he and Gill claimed that Islamic extremism was a greater threat to the West than Putin, and that the West had provoked Russia by supporting the Ukrainian uprising that toppled pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, which led to Putin reacting.

Farage famously warned: “When you poke the Russian bear with a stick, don’t be surprised when he reacts.”

Asked that same year which world leader he most admired, he replied: “As an operator… Putin.” He also praised Putin’s manoeuvres during the Syria crisis as “brilliant,” something which surely even Farage must regret now given the collapse of the Assad regime.

Russia and the Brexit shadow

No, questions about Russian interference and British politics do not begin or end with Nathan Gill. During the Brexit referendum, the unofficial Leave.EU campaign, fronted by Farage, engaged in discussions with representatives of the Russian government while Russia was under sanctions for invading Crimea and had been linked to the Salisbury poisonings.

Arron Banks and Andy Wigmore, key figures of the campaign, reportedly held multiple meetings with Russian officials and explored business opportunities including a proposal involving gold mines. Their extensive contacts were revealed in tens of thousands of emails obtained by journalist Isabel Oakeshott.

The Commons Intelligence and Security Committee ultimately examined Russian interference in UK politics. Its long-delayed 2020 Russia Report found an extraordinary lack of curiosity from the government and intelligence agencies about whether Russia had influenced the Brexit vote.

“Predictably, this lack of interest seemed most closely linked to a determination not to question the outcome of the 2016 Referendum,” wrote former Labour MP Ian Lucas in Byline Times.

‘Reverse ferret’

When Sky News’ Sophy Ridge suggested in an interview with Peter Kyle that Farage has condemned Putin in recent years, Kyle responded that Farage only changed his tune when it was impossible to ignore the Russian danger.

“More recently when the entire country has realised just how dangerous Vladimir Putin is, of course Nigel Farage does a reverse ferret as he often does.”

“Nigel Farage will talk out of both sides of his mouth, but he has been consistent about one thing in the past over many many years and that’s his support and admiration for Vladimir Putin.”

Across Europe, far-right politicians are undergoing their own strategic pivot against Russia. Having previously courted the Kremlin, many now distance themselves as they seek mainstream power. As Politico reports, even leaders of Germany’s AfD, long accused of Kremlin sympathy, are now disciplining colleagues for attending events in Russia. Similar dynamics are playing out in France, Italy and Romania.

Farage is no exception. But his attempted repositioning, it could be argued, has been aided immeasurably by a media climate that prefers to look the other way.

The scandal that should have sparked a reckoning

In a healthy media landscape, the Gill conviction would have ignited a national reckoning about Reform UK, Russian influence, and the vulnerability of British politics to foreign money and disinformation.

Instead, the story slipped quietly beneath the surface, predictably overshadowed by Budget coverage and right-wing rage directed at Rachel Reeves.

And so, Farage, a man whose far-right party now dominates the polls, and who could become prime minister if an election were held today, sails on unscathed.

Perhaps the most important question now is not whether Gill was a “bad apple,” but whether his conviction is merely the tip of the iceberg, and whether the UK’s right-wing media is helping to ensure we never find out.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch 

Asst. editor of Left Foot Forward

Support for Reform UK nosedives across several polls as scandals take toll

Basit Mahmood

1 December, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

Farage's headaches continue...

Nigel Farage’s headaches are continuing as support for Reform falls in the polls, bursting the party’s bubble, and it’s more than just a one-off blip.

Several major pollsters have found support for Reform to be falling towards the end of the year, with the recent scandals that the party has been hit by, whether that’s its former leader in Wales being jailed for taking Russian bribes, or councillors suspended for posting racist messages, having had an effect on their poll ratings.

According to the latest YouGov poll, Farage’s party have fallen to their lowest polling level in more than six months, as it continues to make the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The polling company found that from November 23-24, Nigel Farage’s party are polling at 25%, a two point drop on the week before.

In a post on X, poll aggregator Election Maps UK stated that whilst YouGov usually “record lower Reform scores than other pollsters,” this was still the lowest polling for the party in any poll since April 25.

In addition, polling by Survation has found that Reform are down by five percentage points and to make matters worse for Farage, a BMG research poll has also found Reform’s support falling five points, with a once 15-point advantage now almost halving.

Petition to investigate ‘Russian influence’ on UK politics surpasses 100,000 signatures

Basit Mahmood 

2 December, 2025

Left Foot Forward News

It comes amid greater scrutiny of links between Reform and Russia after the party’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes in exchange for making pro-Russia speeches

A petition calling for a public inquiry into Russian influence on UK politics has reached more than 100,000 signatures, spelling yet more trouble for Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

The petition, which at the time of writing has secured 109,497 signatures, states: “We are concerned about reported efforts from Russia to influence democracy in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. We believe we must establish the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence campaigns in the UK.”

It comes amid greater scrutiny of links between Reform and Russia after the party’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes in exchange for making pro-Russia speeches in the European Parliament in 2018 and 2019.

We also ought not to forget that Farage has previously spoken about how he ‘admires’ Vladimir Putin.

Pressure has increased on Farage to launch an investigation into links between his party and Russia, which he has thus far resisted.

Following the conviction of Gill, Labour called on Farage to “leave no stone unturned” in reviewing “every inch” of Reform UK’s party structures, membership, party donors and representatives, to ensure any remaining pro-Russian links were rooted out.

Starmer told the BBC: “I think it begs a very important question, because this is a long prison sentence for pro-Russian bribes, and I think that that demands that Nigel Farage investigate how that happened within his party, and, equally importantly, what other links there are between his party and Russia.

“He should set up an inquiry, an investigation into his own party.”

Labour MP Luke Charters also took to X to point out Reform’s links to Russia. He posted: “DOES REFORM HAVE A RUSSIA PROBLEM?

“Let’s take a look… Nathan Gill, former Reform Wales leader, sentenced to 10.5 years for accepting ~£40k bribes for pro-Russian speeches.

“At the last election coordinated social media pages were uncovered that spread Kremlin talking points, with some posting in support of Reform.

“Farage rejected demands for party investigation into Russian influence, claiming he’s “not a police force.”

“Farage named Putin the world leader he most admired as a “operator.”

“Farage repeatedly pushed the pro-Kremlin line that the West was to blame for “provoking” Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine

“Farage called Putin’s involvement in Syria “brilliant”.

“Farage was paid to appear on pro-Kremlin broadcaster Russia Today”.

Voters say Reform UK is more ‘pro Russia’ than anti-Russia in fresh blow to Nigel Farage

Basit Mahmood 

2 December, 2025 

Left Foot Forward

Why doesn’t Farage launch an investigation into his party on Russian links?

Voters are more likely to say that Reform UK is ‘pro-Russia’ than anti-Russia, a new poll has revealed in a fresh blow to Nigel Farage.

The poll, carried out by YouGov, found that 28% of respondents believe Reform is pro-Russia compared to 13% who say it is anti-Russia.

The poll findings come at a time when Reform is under growing scrutiny over its links to Russia after the party’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, was sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes in exchange for making pro-Russia speeches in the European Parliament in 2018 and 2019.

Farage has also previously spoken of his admiration for Putin and pushed the pro-Kremlin line that the West was to blame for “provoking” Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Following Gill’s conviction, Farage has faced growing pressure to launch a wider investigation into his party and whether any other members have links to the Kremlin, an investigation he has thus far resisted.

Why doesn’t Farage launch an investigation?

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

‘We Are Being Held to Ransom’: Trump-Starmer Deal Would Force NHS to Pay More for Medicines

One British lawmaker condemned the agreement as “a Trump shakedown of the NHS.”

National Health Service pharmacy on Wapping Lane on December, 2 2024 in London, United Kingdom.
(Photo by Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Dec 01, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced swift backlash on Monday after the Trump administration announced a deal under which the United Kingdom’s prized National Health Service would pay higher prices for new medicines in exchange for tariff exemptions.

The agreement in principle, outlined in a statement by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, was seen by UK lawmakers and advocacy groups as a gross capitulation to US President Donald Trump and the pharmaceutical industry that would harm the NHS and British patients for years to come.

RECOMMENDED...

Biden-Era Law That Trump Has Attacked Delivers Price Cuts for 15 More Drugs Under Medicare

Trump Healthcare Payment Proposal Sparks Fresh Medicare for All Demands to Fix ‘Broken’ Healthcare System

“Giving in to Big Pharma’s demands to hike the price of medicines spells disaster for our NHS, and for the lives of ordinary people,” said Global Justice Now, a UK-based group. “We are being held to ransom. Our government must stand up to Big Pharma and for our NHS by reversing course.”

Under the three-year deal, the NHS would boost the net price it pays for new pharmaceutical drugs, many of which emerge from the US, by 25%—a change that’s expected to cost British taxpayers roughly £3 billion. In return, Trump has agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceuticals.

Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, denounced the new agreement as “a Trump shakedown of the NHS.” As evidence, she pointed to US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s celebration of the bilateral deal.

“It cannot go ahead,” said Morgan. “RFK Jr. has put it in black and white: Trump demanded these pay rises to put Americans first, and our government rolled over. Patients stuck on crammed hospital corridors, or unable to get an ambulance, won’t forget it.”

“The British people didn’t vote for this,” Morgan added. “The government must put this agreement to a vote in parliament.”

Andrew Hill, a visiting health economics researcher at the University of Liverpool, similarly criticized the deal.

“The UK hasn’t benefited from this at all, but we’re having to pay all this extra money,” said Hill. “More money spent on drugs means less money spent on ambulances, doctors, nurses, simple health interventions.”

In addition to facing the threat of Trump tariffs, the UK government was under pressure from the powerful pharmaceutical industry to jack up NHS drug spending. The Guardian reported in September that “big pharmaceutical companies have ditched or paused nearly £2 billion in planned UK investments so far this year” as the firms “accused the government of not spending enough on new medicines.”

Survey data released just ahead of Monday’s deal announcement shows that 64% of the British public is opposed to the NHS paying higher prices for medicines.

“This is a betrayal of NHS patients,” said Diarmaid McDonald, executive director of the advocacy group Just Treatment. “Big Pharma have got what they want. Donald Trump has got what he wants. In the face of their coordinated threats, the government has folded and thousands of patients will pay for this with their lives, as precious funds get stripped from other parts of the health service to line the pockets of rich pharmaceutical execs.”

“MPs need to urgently hold the government to account,” McDonald added, “and demand they publish the evidence showing the impact of this catastrophic move.”

“This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients.”

Asked at a Monday press briefing if the deal would actually benefit US patients and consumers, as the Trump administration has claimed, or if the alleged revenue generated by the agreement would just be “sucked up” by the drug companies, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not have an immediate answer.

“I’m going to be honest with you, Ed,” Leavitt told the reporter: “I’ll get you an answer to that question after the briefing.”

Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines director, argued in a statement that the agreement wouldn’t help Americans or Britons.

“ Drug prices are far too high everywhere, including in the UK, backed by patent monopolies and contributing to rationing and preventable suffering,” said Maybarduk. “This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients while distracting from the serious action needed at home to hold Pharma accountable and make medicine affordable and available for all.”

 

Indonesia's efforts to activate the blue economy

/ Killian Pham - Unsplash

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bno - Surabaya Office December 1, 2025

As the world’s largest archipelagic nation, the Republic of Indonesia’s future is inextricably linked to the vast expanse of its ocean territory. Securing this critical domain and sustainably harnessing its economic potential, known domestically as the 'blue economy', represents the paramount strategic objective for the government and military command.

To achieve this dual mandate, Indonesia has deliberately leveraged high-level international collaborations and fostered domestic industrial autonomy. These efforts are focused on elevating the operational capacity of the naval and maritime security forces and addressing fundamental structural deficits in the nation's legal and economic governance. The recent $5bn strategic understanding with the United Kingdom, as reported by Forces News, and the ongoing technological programme with Greek defence company Scytalys for maritime surveillance aircraft, as reported by Jakarta Globe, serve as a national push towards enhanced regional security and economic diversification.

Indonesia’s blue economy: The government’s next resource potential

Indonesia’s maritime territory represents an enormous untapped resource, yet its contribution to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) currently stands at only around 7%, Maritime Fairtrade reports. This modest figure is due, in part, to an inefficient and fragmented legal structure governing maritime affairs, which necessitates a complete reorganisation to properly facilitate investment and sustainable economic practices. The blue economy, which includes responsible management of marine resources, logistics, and transportation, requires a balanced national prioritisation that currently appears to favour large-scale, land-based ventures. Realising the full wealth potential of the sea depends entirely on resolving these domestic policy inconsistencies and ensuring regulatory clarity for citizens and international investors alike.

The $5bn maritime sovereignty boost

The multi-year, strategic accord with the United Kingdom, valued at an estimated $5bn, is a central element in strengthening Indonesia’s defence capabilities and accelerating the national shipbuilding industry. Forces News reports that this covenant is designed to transfer critical naval-vessel development expertise from the UK, primarily through the participation of the British firm Babcock. Critically, the structure dictates that the naval vessels themselves will be constructed within Indonesian yards, serving as a powerful catalyst for local investment and the upskilling of our workforce. President Prabowo Subianto noted that this initiative is a transformative step forward, enabling the nation to domestically develop and construct our own essential vessels, supported by the technology and experience of a key partner.

The benefits of this alliance extend far beyond naval requirements. The programme is also committed to producing over one thousand vessels for the nation’s fishing fleets, which is a direct policy measure aimed at bolstering domestic seafood consumption and improving our overall national food security, Dunfermline Press reports. This holistic approach underscores Jakarta’s view of maritime power as inseparable from economic stability. The two countries are further cementing their strategic relationship by jointly conducting research into advanced shipbuilding practices, including the future application of automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the manufacturing process, Forces News reports.

This high-profile military export to an Indo-Pacific partner is also indicative of the UK's wider success in securing substantial covenants, such as the $12.5bn opportunity for anti-submarine warships for Norway and the $10bn Typhoon fighter jet compact with Turkey. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer emphasised that these alliances yield economic dividends for the partner nation, specifically securing roughly 1,000 employment roles in Britain, mainly in the Rosyth area, Dunfermline Press reports. For Indonesia, the greater reward lies in the long-term structural uplift of the shipbuilding sector and the improved naval interoperability and joint training facilitated by the programme, which reinforces our collective commitment to a rules-based international order and freedom of navigation.

The imperative for domestic legal reform for the Blue Economy

To truly maximise the economic potential of our vast marine resources, the Indonesian government must urgently tackle internal structural impediments, particularly the need for comprehensive legal reorganisation, as reported by Maritime Fairtrade. Experts have repeatedly stressed that the current fragmented legal statutes are simply insufficient for managing the complexities of contemporary maritime affairs and are detrimental to the national push for sustainable economic growth. The lack of clarity, for example, has resulted in high-profile incidents involving the seizure of fishing vessels based on ambiguous policy interpretations, leading to regulatory uncertainty and discouraging investment.

A crucial proposed remedy involves the establishment of a dedicated Maritime Commercial Court, also known as an Admiralty Court, as reported by Maritime Fairtrade. Such a specialised judicial body would enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement, substantially reducing the current judicial sluggishness and regulatory overlap that currently plagues dispute resolution in the sector. The profound necessity of this legal certainty was highlighted by the 2020 Batam incident, where the impounding of vessels carrying essential goods caused significant disruption to supply chains, directly contributing to undesirable escalations in market prices.

Furthermore, the full scope of the blue economy must be accurately reflected in national policy and prioritisation. Whilst embracing the vital role of traditional sectors like logistics, Professor Luky Adrianto underscores that the focus must expand to include the responsible management of all aquatic and marine resources, including the need for firm regulation of resource extraction, such as deep-sea mining and oil and gas exploration, to mitigate potential ecological damage. The prevailing sentiment is that national planning must achieve a more appropriate balance, moving away from an excessive focus on terrestrial ventures and giving the non-extractive, environmentally responsible marine sector the central, strategic role it deserves for accelerating GDP growth.

Strategic alliances to advance technical autonomy

In parallel with securing high-level external collaborations and tackling domestic reform, Indonesia is demonstrating its commitment to technical self-reliance through the development of specialised indigenous aircraft platforms. The state-owned aerospace manufacturer, Dirgantara Indonesia (DI), also entered into a strategic programme with the Greek defence enterprise Scytalys for the co-development of a high-technology maritime surveillance aircraft (MSA), Jakarta Globe reports. This compact is especially significant as the MSA will be based on the locally designed and manufactured N219 Nurtanio platform, a major achievement for the national aerospace industry.

The N219 was originally conceived as a short take-off and landing (STOL) civilian transport plane, perfectly suited for the remote and rugged environments within the archipelagic nation. Its current configuration for military and paramilitary roles, achieved through this new alliance, represents a major step forward in national technical maturation. DI will take the lead role as the primary contractor for the aircraft’s configuration, while the Greek partner, Scytalys, will provide the expertise for integrating the sophisticated surveillance technology.

The resulting MSA will be equipped with the MIMS Airborne Mission System, providing advanced digital tracking capability. Its sensor suite includes an electro-optical sensor with a 20 kilometre detection range and a radar system capable of surveying up to 160 nautical miles, making it an invaluable national asset for the Maritime Security Agency (Bakamla). Bakamla has already requested four units, reaffirming its commitment to utilising domestically produced equipment. The technology, including a tactical datalink for real-time target transmission, is crucial for closing existing surveillance gaps in remote border waters, thereby directly supporting the nation’s ability to project security across its territorial sea and uphold its maritime interests.

WORLD AIDS DAY, EXCEPT IN TRUMP'S USA

 

World AIDS Day highlights major innovations amid decline in global funding

As World AIDS Day is marked around the globe, rapid scientific progress is being overshadowed by funding shortfalls and weakened health systems that are putting the global fight against HIV at risk.


Issued on: 01/12/2025 

Volunteers light candles during an awareness campaign event organised on the eve of 'World AIDS Day' in Kathmandu on 30 November 2025. AFP - PRAKASH MATHEM

The global fight against HIV/Aids has found itself at a troubling crossroads. On one hand, scientific progress is picking up pace; on the other, the latest UNAIDS report paints a stark picture of a world struggling to keep its momentum.

International response is weakening, held back by falling funding and disrupted health services.

Worldwide, an estimated 41 million people are now living with HIV. Last year saw 1.3 million new infections, and 9.2 million people still lack access to life-saving antiretroviral (ARV) treatment.

According to UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima: “the global response to HIV has suffered its biggest setback in decades.”

But she insists that “HIV is not over,” and has called for renewed global mobilisation.

Her plea follows especially disappointing news: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria raised just over €9 billion for the next three years – far short of the €15 billion it says is needed.

This is even lower than the last replenishment round in 2022, threatening the future of crucial programmes around the world.

Positive developments in the lab

But it’s not all bleak. In research centres worldwide, scientists are making remarkable advances.

Yazdan Yazdanpanah, director of the French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Emerging Diseases (ANRS-MIE), describes the situation as a paradox: impressive scientific advances on one side, declining capacity to roll them out on the other – a sort of “double dynamic”.

One encouraging development is the arrival of long-acting antiretroviral treatments. Instead of taking a pill every day, people can now receive treatment once every two months.

This, Yazdanpanah explains, boosts adherence and generally feels more manageable for many. Some 43 percent of people living with HIV say these long-acting treatments are their first choice – even before considering side effects or tablet size.

Prevention tools are also evolving. A major breakthrough is injectable PrEP, which offers long-term protection against HIV.

Lenacapavir – recently recommended by the World Health Organization – provides six months of protection with a single shot.

“It’s one injection every six months to prevent HIV,” says Yazdanpanah. Thanks to an international pricing agreement, the cost could be around €35 per year in 120 low-resource countries, compared with roughly €25,300 per year previously charged in the United States.

 A pharmacist holds a vial of lenacapavir, the new HIV prevention injectable drug, at the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation's Masiphumelele Research Site, in Cape Town, South Africa, Tuesday, 23 July, 2024, which was one of the sites for Gilead's lenacapavir drug trial. © Nardus Engelbrecht / AP


South Africa, Eswatini and Zambia on Monday began administering the groundbreaking injection in the drug's first public rollouts in Africa.

Eastern and southern Africa account for about 52 percent of the 40.8 million people living with HIV worldwide, according to 2024 UNAIDS data.

Under the programme, manufacturer Gilead Sciences has agreed to provide lenacapavir at no profit to two million people in countries with a high HIV burden over three years.

Critics say this is far below the actual requirement and that the market price is out of reach for most people.
Progress needs power, power needs funding

These advances, impressive as they are, risk remaining theoretical unless health systems can keep up.

In 2025, global development aid for health fell by 22 percent, driven largely by reductions or withdrawals from major US programmes.

The consequences are already being felt, says Françoise Vanni, external relations director at the Global Fund.

“There has been a crisis in international financing for the fight against HIV/Aids and for global health more broadly, with drastic cuts from a number of donor countries that have really caused major interruptions in the delivery of essential services,” she explained to RFI.

With infections rising again in several countries, she is blunt about the reality for frontline programmes: “Very concretely, it means it is much more difficult to fight these diseases effectively.”

Nowhere is this fragility clearer than in sub-Saharan Africa, which bears a disproportionate share of the epidemic. The region accounts for a large share of new HIV infections and is home to 60 percent of all people living with the virus.

In 13 countries, fewer people started treatment last year. Supply shortages have been felt, too, with disruptions in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo affecting both HIV testing and access to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy.

Khanyiswa Kwatsha, who runs a mobile clinic for the Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (RHI) background, shows containers of PrEP medication used in the prevention of HIV infectionin in the Soshanguve Township, north of Pretoria, South Africa, Thursday, 26 November 2020. AP - Denis Farrell


The funding crisis, compounded by the lasting effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, is undermining the progress made since the early 2000s.

In Nigeria, condom distribution has dropped by 55 percent.

Community organisations – traditionally the backbone of HIV work – are also under heavy strain, with more than 60 percent of those led by women forced to suspend essential programmes.

UNAIDS makes its position clear: science alone cannot end the epidemic. The agency is urging the global community to rethink the funding model so that heavily affected countries invest more of their own resources. Without this shift, the world will almost certainly fall short of its goal to end the HIV/Aids epidemic by 2030.

At best, current trends would allow the international community merely to hold the epidemic steady. At worst, if the decline in funding continues, UNAIDS warns of a resurgence of HIV/Aids by 2030.

Treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS: Unfinished business

Georgetown University Medical Center

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

WASHINGTON – As the world marks World AIDS Day on Dec. 1, world-renowned infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, and his colleague Greg Folkers, MS, MPH, highlight advances made in the treatment and prevention of HIV that could finally end the pandemic, but caution, “History will judge us harshly should we squander this opportunity.”

Writing in PLOS Medicine (“Treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS: Unfinished business,” December 1, 2025), Fauci, Distinguished University Professor in Georgetown’s School of Medicine and McCourt School of Public Policy, and Folkers, Fauci’s long-time chief of staff at the National Institutes of Health explore a path forward for eliminating HIV/AIDS. The number of people living with HIV globally in 2024 exceeded 40 million, with 1.3 million new infections and 660,000 deaths in that year alone.

They reflect on significant advances made in the development of powerful therapeutics to treat and prevent HIV and underscore the importance of programs such as the Global Fund and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which have allowed for successful implementation and scale up of treatment and prevention interventions that have saved millions of lives.

However, pauses in U.S. foreign development assistance leading to the termination of clinical services “likely has resulted in the illness and death of thousands of people with HIV. Modelling studies suggest that millions of additional HIV infections and deaths could occur if withheld funding is not reconstituted and expanded,” they write, adding, “The time is now to advocate for the US Congress to renew funding of the Global Fund and PEPFAR at robust levels.”

Fauci and Folkers acknowledge that these two programs alone will not end the epidemic and they highlight the importance of countries taking control of their own HIV responses complemented by the work of international agencies, donors, community groups, drug manufacturers, researchers and implementers.

“Only with such a multi-pronged effort will we end the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” they write.

 

---

Journal

PLOS Medicine

DOI

10.1371/journal.pmed.1004806 

Method of Research

Commentary/editorial

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS: Unfinished business

Article Publication Date

1-Dec-2025

Researchers identify why some people with HIV achieve remission after antibody treatment

Study from the Ragon Institute of Mass General Brigham, MIT and Harvard has found a property of a specific kind of immune cell that may explain why some people can keep HIV in check

Brigham and Women's Hospital

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Study from the Ragon Institute of Mass General Brigham, MIT and Harvard has found a property of a specific kind of immune cell that may explain why some people can keep HIV in check
• Insight could be harnessed to eliminate the need for daily antiviral medications

Researchers led by a team from Mass General Brigham and the Ragon Institute have discovered why some people living with HIV who are given a treatment called broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies (bNAbs) can safely stop taking standard, lifelong HIV medications and maintain control of the virus for years, while others given the same treatment do not achieve this remission. The findings, which are published in Nature, could potentially be used to design combination therapies that work for more people.

“Our results show that some people can go on to control the virus on their own without treatment because of a property of a type of killer T cell,” said senior author David Collins, PhD, an investigator at the Ragon Institute of Mass General Brigham, MIT, and Harvard. “This is an important insight into how the body’s natural defenses can be harnessed to achieve durable HIV remission.”

For their study, Collins and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 12 people in four different clinical trials who received bNAbs and then stopped standard antiretroviral therapy. They compared samples from the seven participants who could control HIV after bNAb treatment for up to seven years (that is, keep the virus at very low levels) with samples from five participants who experienced viral rebound. They found that immune cells called CD8+ T cells of “post-intervention controllers” could multiply well and kill HIV cells efficiently. While bNAb treatment boosted these abilities, what mattered most was having these CD8+ T cell features before treatment.

“Control wasn’t uniquely linked to the development of new types of responses; it was the quality of existing CD8+ T cell responses that appeared to make the difference,” Collins explained. “Immunotherapies capable of enhancing virus-specific CD8+ T cells’ capacity to respond to and fight infection, and capable of restoring the cells’ ability to proliferate or renew themselves in all recipients, may dramatically enhance the likelihood of durable HIV remission elicited by bNAb administration.” 

Prospective studies with additional participants are needed to support the implication that HIV-specific CD8+ T cell features can predict responses to bNAb therapy and might also be targeted to allow more people living with HIV to benefit from this line of treatment.

“Efforts are underway to induce the same immune system properties we see in the post-intervention controllers in persons living with HIV,” said Bruce Walker, MD, a co-author on the study and director of the Ragon Institute at Mass General Brigham. “Whether we will succeed remains to be seen, but I am cautiously optimistic.”

Authorship: In addition to Collins, Mass General Brigham authors include Zahra Kiani, Jonathan M. Urbach, Hannah Wisner, Mpho J. Olatotse, Daniel Y. Chang, Joshua A. Acklin, Alicja Piechocka-Trocha, Nathalie Bonheur, Ashok Khatri, Mathias Lichterfeld, and Bruce D. Walker. Additional authors include Jesper D. Gunst and Ole S. Søgaard of Aarhus University, and Marina Caskey and Michel C. Nussenzweig of Rockefeller University.

Disclosures: None.

Funding: This work was supported by funding from United States National Institutes of Health (AI184606, AI155233, AI152979,AI176579, AI44462), Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Lundbeck Foundation (R381–2021–1405). Funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Paper cited: Kiani Z et al. “CD8+ T cell stemness precedes post-intervention control of HIV viremia” Nature DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09932-w

###

About Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, community and specialty hospitals, a health insurance plan, physician networks, community health centers, home care, and long-term care services. Mass General Brigham is a nonprofit organization committed to patient care, research, teaching, and service to the community. In addition, Mass General Brigham is one of the nation’s leading biomedical research organizations with several Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals. For more information, please visit massgeneralbrigham.org.

About the Ragon Institute
The Ragon Institute of Mass General Brigham, MIT, and Harvard was established in 2009 with a gift from the Phillip T. and Susan M. Ragon Foundation, with a collaborative scientific mission among these institutions to harness the immune system to combat and cure human disease. Focusing on diseases of global importance, the Ragon Institute draws scientists, clinicians and engineers from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise to study and understand the immune system with the goal of benefiting patients. 

For more information, visit www.ragoninstitute.org

---

Journal

Nature

DOI

10.1038/s41586-025-09932-w 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

CD8+ T cell stemness precedes post-intervention control of HIV viremia

Article Publication Date

1-Dec-2025

South Africa’s Deputy President Mashatile

Hails Breakthrough HIV Prevention

Injection

South Africa's Deputy President Paul Mashatile. Photo Credit: SA News

December 2, 2025 
By SA News


As the globe commemorates World AIDS Day, Deputy President Paul Mashatile said the introduction of lenacapavir, a long-acting preventative treatment, is set to change the landscape of HIV prevention in South Africa.

This is after government recently announced the groundbreaking development in HIV prevention that promises to revolutionise how individuals safeguard themselves against the virus.

The Deputy President, who is also the Chairperson of the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC), addressed the official commemoration at Ga-Masemola Stadium in the Sekhukhune District of Limpopo.

Lenacapavir is a revolutionary long-acting injectable drug that offers six months of protection and requires only two injections per year.

In October this year, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) achieved regulatory readiness, making it the first in Africa and the third globally to register lenacapavir.

According to the country’s second-in-command, this innovation is particularly significant for people who struggle to adhere to daily pill regimens and touched on the profound implications for marginalised communities.

“Lenacapavir offers hope for young women who cannot negotiate condom use. It empowers adolescent girls navigating relationships marked by power imbalances. It protects key populations who face stigma and discrimination.

“Lenacapavir speaks to the reality of our people’s lives, that prevention must be practical, dignified, discreet, and compatible with the pressures of daily survival.”

Acknowledging the urgency of ensuring rapid access to life-saving tools, the Deputy President warned against the missteps of the early antiretroviral therapy (ART) era.

“Let me be clear: we cannot repeat the mistakes of the early ARV era, where life-saving tools reached our shores too slowly. This time, we move with urgency, with foresight, and with unity,” he stated.

Deputy President Mashatile described the lenacapavir as more than just a drug but a symbol of what becomes possible when science, political will, and community demand meet at the same table.

Meanwhile, to tackle the significant gap of 1.1 million individuals who need access to HIV prevention, the Deputy President called for a critical examination of efforts towards marginalised communities.

“Let us confront stigma with courage, fund research, and ensure treatment reaches everyone. This is a commitment to health, dignity, justice, and equality for all people.”

Currently, South Africa’s statistics are at 96-80-97, while global figures stand at 95-85-92.

These targets are a global strategy for ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030, aiming for 95% of all people living with HIV to know their status; 95% of those who know their status to be on sustained antiretroviral treatment; and 95% of those on treatment to be virally suppressed.

To confront the stubborn second 95 target, government launched an ambitious national recovery effort in February this year, known as the 1.1 million “Close the Gap” Treatment Acceleration Campaign.

“The campaign represents mothers who stopped treatment because transport was too costly, men who walked away after negative clinic experiences, young people who feared disclosure, and thousands who moved between provinces without continuity of care.”

He has since called for multi-sectoral coordination to ensure that the country continues to perform various community-based interventions.

South Africa marks today’s commemoration following a successful Group of 20 (G20) Leaders’ Summit, which included the Global Fund’s 8th Replenishment Summit co-hosted by President Cyril Ramaphosa and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The replenishment campaign aims to secure US$18 billion to support health efforts from 2027 to 2029, to save 23 million lives and strengthen responses to HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria.

In addition, he said government is working around the clock to implement policies that improve access, retention, and re-engagement with treatment.

This includes policies that directly address structural inequalities and work to dismantle stigma, particularly for the most vulnerable individuals, such as women and girls, people who use drugs, sex workers, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and other identities (LGBTQIA+) community.

In the meantime, he said government continues to make significant improvements in HIV testing, treatment and care through expanded access to antiretroviral therapy and innovative community-led prevention efforts.

“On this World AIDS Day, we celebrate the incredible progress that has transformed HIV from a death sentence into a condition that can be managed with dignity and hope.

“Yet, our mission is far from over. Today, we stand at a defining moment – where science, compassion, and unwavering resolve can unite to end an epidemic that has cast its shadow for many years.”

SA News

Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) established the SA Government News Agency to enable all media locally and abroad to have easy and fast access to fresh government information, news and current affairs at no cost.