Twelve democracy campaigners lose their appeal in Hong Kong’s biggest national security trial. What does it mean for the city’s future?

Hong Kong’s High Court on Monday upheld the convictions and prison sentences of 12 pro-democracy campaigners in the city’s largest national security case, reinforcing Beijing’s sweeping crackdown on dissent.

The defendants were part of a group of 45 opposition figures convicted in 2024 for organizing an unofficial primary election in 2020. Authorities deemed the vote a subversive plot, arguing it aimed to secure a legislative majority capable of vetoing the government’s budget and forcing political concessions such as universal suffrage.

Chief Judge Jeremy Poon ruled that the strategy amounted to an unlawful attempt to undermine Hong Kong’s constitutional order. While lawmakers are legally permitted to veto the budget under the city’s Basic Law, the court said using that mechanism as coordinated political leverage crossed into subversion.

Among those whose appeals were dismissed were veteran activist Leung Kwok-hung, known as “Long Hair,” former journalist Gwyneth Ho and Australian citizen Gordon Ng. The defendants waved to supporters in court as the three-judge panel delivered its decision.

Critics swiftly condemned the ruling. Pro-democracy figures described it as a blow to political freedoms, while Amnesty International said the court had missed a chance to correct what it called a miscarriage of justice.

The case traces back to the mass pro-democracy protests of 2019. In response, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in 2020, criminalizing acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Since then, dozens of opposition politicians, activists and civil society leaders have been arrested or jailed.

Sentences in the broader case ranged from just over four years to 10 years in prison. The 12 appellants may seek a final appeal at Hong Kong’s top court, though it remains unclear whether they will pursue that route.

For many in the city, Monday’s ruling underscores a stark reality: the legal boundaries of political opposition in Hong Kong have fundamentally changed.

Trump says help is “on the way.” Greenland says it never asked for it. What’s really behind the hospital ship move?

President Donald Trump said Saturday that he is dispatching a U.S. naval hospital ship to Greenland, the semi-autonomous Danish territory he has repeatedly sought to acquire — an announcement that Greenland’s leadership swiftly rejected.

“Working with the fantastic Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, we are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland,” Trump wrote on social media, alongside an illustration of the USNS Mercy. He claimed the ship would assist “many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there.”

Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded bluntly: “No thank you.”

In a statement, Nielsen said Greenland operates a universal public health care system that provides free treatment to citizens — a “deliberate choice” central to the island’s social model. He urged Washington to engage in direct dialogue rather than make unilateral announcements online.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed that sentiment, defending Denmark’s national health care system and emphasizing equal access regardless of wealth.

It remains unclear whether any deployment order has been issued. The Pentagon directed inquiries to U.S. Northern Command, which referred questions to the Navy. The Navy did not respond. Ship-tracking data showed the USNS Mercy moored in Alabama, with no indication of imminent departure.

The announcement follows Denmark’s recent evacuation of a U.S. submarine crew member from Greenlandic waters for medical treatment — a routine operation handled by Greenlandic authorities. The episode underscores an existing level of cooperation between Copenhagen and Washington.

Strategically, Greenland occupies a critical position in the Arctic, where melting sea ice is opening new shipping routes and intensifying competition among global powers. The United States maintains Pituffik Space Base on the island’s western coast, a key early-warning and surveillance facility.

Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland has unsettled European allies and reignited debate over sovereignty in the Arctic. For many Greenlanders, concerns center less on geopolitics and more on preserving social systems — particularly public health care and education — that differ sharply from the American model.

Whether the hospital ship proposal signals humanitarian outreach or another attempt to assert influence remains uncertain. What is clear is that Greenland’s leadership wants decisions about its future made in Nuuk, not Washington.

A street brawl in Lyon has now triggered a diplomatic row between France and the United States — and tensions are rising.

France has summoned the U.S. ambassador in Paris after American officials publicly commented on the death of a 23-year-old far-right activist, a move French authorities described as unacceptable interference in domestic affairs.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Sunday that Ambassador Charles Kushner would be called in for talks following a social media post from the U.S. Embassy that amplified statements from the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau.

The controversy stems from the death of Quentin Deranque, who died two days after suffering severe head injuries in a violent altercation in Lyon on February 12. Video footage of the brawl, showing masked individuals attacking a man on the ground, circulated widely and sparked national outrage.

French authorities have charged two suspects with murder and arrested a total of 11 individuals in connection with the incident. Investigations are ongoing.

The U.S. Embassy reposted comments suggesting Deranque “was killed by left-wing militants” and warning that “violent radical leftism is on the rise.” Barrot rejected that framing, saying the event concerns France’s national community and that Paris “rejects any interference.”

The diplomatic tension widened after Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the death as linked to “left-wing extremism,” criticizing what she called a climate of ideological hatred across Europe.

This is not the first time tensions have flared between Paris and Washington during Kushner’s tenure. In August 2025, French officials also summoned him after remarks accusing the government of insufficient action against antisemitism.

While the United States and France remain close allies, the episode underscores how domestic political violence — particularly involving far-right and far-left groups — can quickly spill into international diplomacy.

As investigations into Deranque’s death proceed, the focus now shifts to whether the diplomatic fallout will subside — or deepen amid already polarized transatlantic politics.

As China tightens its grip on rare earths, India is looking elsewhere. A new deal with Brazil could reshape global supply chains.

India and Brazil have signed a new agreement to deepen cooperation in critical minerals and rare earths, a move New Delhi hopes will reduce its dependence on China and strengthen supply chain resilience.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Saturday, where the two leaders discussed expanding trade and investment ties. Modi described the minerals agreement as a “major step towards building resilient supply chains.”

China currently dominates global mining and processing of rare earths and other critical minerals, materials essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, smartphones, jet engines and advanced weapons systems. Beijing has tightened export controls in recent months, adding urgency to efforts by countries like India to diversify sources.

Brazil, which holds some of the world’s largest reserves of critical minerals after China, is well positioned to become a key alternative supplier. Lula said increasing cooperation in renewable energy and critical minerals was central to the “pioneering agreement” signed between the two countries.

Although specific details of the minerals pact have not been released, analysts say it reflects India’s broader strategy of securing long-term access to resources vital for industrial growth and clean energy transition. India has recently pursued similar supply chain partnerships with the United States, France and the European Union.

Beyond minerals, the two governments signed nine additional agreements spanning digital cooperation, health and other sectors. Modi called Brazil India’s largest trading partner in Latin America and set a target of pushing bilateral trade beyond $20 billion within five years.

According to trade data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity, Indian exports to Brazil reached $7.23 billion in 2024, led by refined petroleum products. Brazilian exports to India totaled $5.38 billion, with raw sugar among the top commodities.

For both nations, the agreement signals more than commercial ambition. As emerging powers, India and Brazil have increasingly framed their cooperation as strengthening the voice of the Global South in shaping new trade and energy rules.

In a world where control over minerals can shape geopolitical influence, their partnership may mark another step in the global race to loosen China’s grip on strategic resources.

A foreign ISIS fighter captured at midnight — and a U.S. airstrike hours later. The battle for Al-Miskaad is intensifying.

Puntland security forces say they captured a suspected Islamic State fighter in a late-night operation in the Al-Miskaad Mountains, as the United States confirmed it carried out an airstrike in the same region days earlier.

According to officials overseeing operations in the mountainous area, the suspect was detained around midnight in the Tasjiic locality. He was identified as Bishaar Mohamed, described as a Yemeni national believed to be affiliated with ISIS.

Commanders said the man was unarmed at the time of his arrest and had reportedly fled from the Shankaala base in the Baalade valley — an area Puntland authorities describe as a key command hub for ISIS militants operating in the mountains east of Bosaso.

The capture comes amid intensified pressure on the group. In recent weeks, Puntland officials say several ISIS members, many of them foreign nationals, have surrendered to security forces as military operations expand deeper into the rugged terrain.

Separately, United States Africa Command confirmed that on February 16 it conducted an airstrike targeting ISIS fighters in Somalia. AFRICOM said the strike occurred in the Al-Miskaad Mountains, roughly 70 kilometers southeast of Bosaso, but did not disclose details on casualties or the specific targets.

The U.S. military has periodically supported Somali and regional forces with air operations aimed at degrading ISIS and al-Shabaab networks. While ISIS in Somalia is smaller than al-Shabaab, intelligence officials consider its mountainous strongholds strategically significant, particularly due to the presence of foreign fighters and suspected financial networks.

Puntland recently announced a shift in its military approach against ISIS — moving away from direct frontal assaults toward a strategy focused on encirclement and containment. Officials argue that isolating supply routes and tightening control around key bases will weaken the group’s operational capacity over time.

The twin developments — a ground arrest and an aerial strike — underscore a coordinated push to dismantle ISIS infrastructure in northeastern Somalia. Whether the new strategy yields lasting results may depend on sustained pressure, intelligence coordination, and the ability to prevent fighters from regrouping in the difficult terrain of Al-Miskaad.

A shocking “leaked call” spreads online — but is it real? There’s no credible evidence it ever happened.

Social media posts circulating in late February 2026 claim to show a transcript of a phone call between Senator Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy discussing extreme proposals, including “bringing back slavery” and forcing eighth-grade girls to become pregnant.

There is no credible evidence that the conversation ever took place.

The videos, shared across Instagram, X, Facebook, Reddit and other platforms, feature an unidentified voice reading what is described as a leaked transcript. In the alleged exchange, the two Republican politicians are portrayed discussing slavery, state-funded religious schools, mass deportations and mandatory pregnancy for school graduation.

Fact-checkers found no reputable news organizations reporting on such a recording or transcript — an absence that raises serious doubts given the explosive nature of the claims. No details have been provided about who recorded the alleged call, when it supposedly occurred or how it was leaked. Some online posts reference July 2022 but offer no supporting evidence.

The content of the purported transcript also sharply contradicts both politicians’ documented public positions. While McConnell and McCarthy have opposed federal abortion protections and supported conservative judicial appointments, neither has publicly endorsed policies resembling the extreme and inflammatory statements described in the viral posts.

Both lawmakers have previously condemned slavery. In past public statements, McCarthy referred to the “evils” of slavery, while McConnell acknowledged it as a “stain on our history,” though he has opposed federal reparations.

The transcript also references Senator Lindsey Graham and “SCOTUS,” implying coordination around Supreme Court decisions. However, no independent evidence supports the authenticity of the alleged exchange.

Representatives for the lawmakers have not confirmed the transcript as genuine.

Experts warn that fabricated transcripts and AI-generated audio have become increasingly common tools for political misinformation, especially in election cycles. Without verifiable sourcing, audio proof or confirmation from credible outlets, the claim remains unsubstantiated.

In short, there is no proof that McConnell and McCarthy held the conversation described in the viral posts. The allegations appear to be based on an unverified and highly sensationalized script circulating online.

Eighty years after World War II, Russia and Japan still have no peace treaty — and now Moscow says there’s no dialogue at all.

Russia has declared that there is no ongoing dialogue with Japan toward a formal peace treaty, saying bilateral relations have effectively collapsed amid what the Kremlin describes as Tokyo’s “unfriendly” stance.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday that ties between Moscow and Tokyo have been “reduced to zero,” making discussions about a long-delayed peace agreement impossible under current conditions.

“There is no dialogue, and it is impossible to discuss the issue of a peace treaty without dialogue,” Peskov said during a daily briefing. He added that Russia had not sought to end discussions but argued that the deterioration in relations had made progress unlikely.

The dispute centers on the Kuril Islands — known in Japan as the Northern Territories — a chain of islands seized by Soviet forces at the end of World War II. The territorial disagreement has prevented Russia and Japan from signing a formal peace treaty, leaving the wartime conflict technically unresolved nearly eight decades later.

In her inaugural address to parliament on Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi reaffirmed Tokyo’s long-standing position. Despite strained ties, she said Japan remains committed to resolving the territorial issue and concluding a peace treaty with Russia.

However, Moscow’s tone suggests little appetite for movement. Peskov indicated that without a change in the broader framework of relations — including Japan’s alignment with Western sanctions and policies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — no agreements are likely.

The breakdown underscores the widening geopolitical divide between Russia and U.S.-aligned nations in Asia. Japan has imposed sanctions on Moscow and increased coordination with NATO partners, further complicating prospects for reconciliation.

For now, the decades-old territorial dispute remains frozen — another casualty of a broader global realignment that has hardened diplomatic positions on both sides.

When Washington says it’s “talking to Beijing” about Taiwan arms sales, Taipei listens carefully — and nervously.

U.S. President Donald Trump has stirred unease in Taiwan after revealing he is discussing potential American arms sales to the island with Chinese President Xi Jinping, raising questions about whether longstanding U.S. policy guardrails are shifting.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump said: “I’m talking to him about it. We had a good conversation, and we’ll make a determination pretty soon,” referring to Xi’s objections to U.S. weapons packages for Taiwan. He added that he maintains “a very good relationship” with the Chinese leader.

The comments were unexpected and, according to several analysts, potentially sensitive. For decades, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has rested on carefully balanced principles designed to deter conflict without formally recognizing the island as independent.

One of those principles — known as the Six Assurances, issued under President Ronald Reagan in 1982 — explicitly states that the United States would not consult Beijing on arms sales to Taiwan. Analysts warn that even the perception of consultation could weaken that precedent.

Taiwan’s government has not publicly responded, as the island observes Lunar New Year holidays. But experts say the signal matters.

The United States does not have formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, yet it remains the island’s primary security partner and arms supplier under the Taiwan Relations Act, passed in 1979. That law obligates Washington to provide Taipei with the means to defend itself and to regard threats against Taiwan as a matter of “grave concern.”

Beijing views Taiwan as part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve unification. It routinely condemns U.S. arms sales and has intensified military pressure around the island in recent years.

In December, the Trump administration approved a record $11 billion arms package for Taiwan. Earlier this month, Xi reportedly told Trump during a phone call that Taiwan is “the most important issue” in U.S.-China relations and urged Washington to handle arms sales “with prudence.”

Analysts say Trump’s public acknowledgment of discussions could introduce uncertainty into the triangular relationship between Washington, Beijing and Taipei — particularly ahead of his planned visit to China in April.

For Taiwan, the concern is not necessarily that arms sales will stop, but that the issue might become negotiable in broader U.S.-China talks involving trade, technology or regional security.

As cross-strait tensions simmer, even rhetorical shifts can ripple far beyond diplomatic language. In Taipei, the question now is whether policy remains unchanged — or whether the foundations of U.S. strategic ambiguity are subtly moving.