Read the daily news to learn English

picture of article

Even US will not be powerful enough ‘to go alone’, says Merz – Munich Security Conference live

Discussing trade, Finland’s Stubb gets asked on his advice for other countries to secure their future in this new, emerging world order. He semi-jokes saying “join the European Union, it gives you protection.” He says that became even clearer after Trump’s threat on Greenland, as he couldn’t just impose tariffs on some EU countries, “because it’s then 25% for the European Union.” He says smaller countries or middle powers should “lean in and support the multilateral trade organisations” to give them some protection. Earlier, WTO’s chief Ngozi said that while she “may not agree with the US [on unilateral actions],” she agreed “with a lot of their criticism of the system.” “I would like to say is that the system has not evolved, has not been quick to change and respond to the changing world, and some of those criticisms about it not functioning well, are good,” she said. She said more needs to be done, but also stressed that “in spite of the massive disruption of the system, the biggest [undermining of global trade rules] we’ve seen in the past 80 years, … the system is proving resilient.”

picture of article

Canada school deaths suspect created shooting simulator on gaming platform

The 18-year-old suspect in a high school shooting in British Columbia had previously created a mass shooting simulator on the gaming platform Roblox, it has been revealed. The simulator, set in what appeared to be a virtual shopping mall, allowed users – represented as Roblox-style avatars – to pick up weapons and shoot other players, 404 Media reported on Thursday. Users first identified the suspect’s Roblox account and game on Kiwi Farms, a site known for doxing and trolling. After the shooting on Wednesday, Canadian police identified the suspect as Jesse Van Rootselaar. In a statement to the Guardian, Roblox said: “We have removed the user account connected to this horrifying incident as well as any content associated with the suspect. We are committed to fully supporting law enforcement in their investigation.” The California-based company added that the “Mall experience” was accessible only through Roblox Studio, a separate app used by developers to create games. As a result, the simulator recorded just seven visits. Roblox also said it uses a combination of AI and a team of safety specialists to review content that is uploaded to its platform before it is shown to another user. Wednesday’s attack – one of Canada’s deadliest school shootings since the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre when a gunman killed 14 women – left nine people dead in Tumbler Ridge, a small coalmining community. The victims included a teacher, five students, the suspect’s mother and her stepbrother. The suspect, who reportedly had a history of mental health issues, was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This isn’t the first time Roblox has been criticised for its content. The platform allows its millions of users to create and share their own video games – many of them benign, featuring cartoon fish and camping trips. However, it has also allegedly made Jeffrey Epstein-themed content available to children, and is facing a lawsuit in California for facilitating the sexual exploitation and assault of minors. The links between violent video games and mass shootings have been long-debated and remain inconclusive, with large studies finding at most a small correlation between gaming and real-world aggression. However, though games may not cause violence, recent incidents underscore the growing trend of “gamified violence”: extremists adopting elements of video game design in the context of real-world attacks. This is becoming increasingly common. The attackers in the 2019 mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, broadcast their massacre on Twitch, a platform that allows users to livestream themselves playing video games; as did the shooter in the racially motivated attack in Buffalo, New York, in 2022.

picture of article

‘What word is there for this?’ Tumbler Ridge reaches for unity in a storm of grief

Residents of the Canadian mining town Tumbler Ridge largely agree that Tuesday 10 February began like a normal day. The cloudy haze that settled over the valley was typical. So too was the chill of winter. There were no hints that the quiet and comfortable routine of daily life in the mountains would be irrevocably shattered in one of the country’s worst ever acts of mass violence. The shops had been open for hours and students were midway through classes when a shooter opened fire and killed eight people, most of them young children. The attack unleashed a storm of grief, rage and disbelief that hangs heavy over the town. Hugs between friends linger tighter and longer. Grown men fall to their knees, their eyes red-rimmed at the injustice of it all. Residents are robbed of the ability to speak. “What do you even call this? What word is there for this?” said Don McKay, whose 17-year-old son, Duncan, was in gym class when the shooter arrived at the school and opened fire. Most students ignored the scattered bangs until a teacher came running into the gym and began frantically herding them into a storage room that he then locked. “I’ve encouraged him to speak to help make sense of it,” said McKay. “But it also helps. Because I just don’t have the words. Sometimes, for a moment, I do. But most of the time I can’t.” At a vigil on Thursday night, the mayor, Darryl Krakowka, said crying was not a sign of weakness, but of strength, and the community needed to stay strong. After police released a full list of victims, families began to publicly mourn a loss that remains both inconceivable and gut-wrenching in its cruelty. The children, between the ages of 12 and 13, were remembered as dreamers, dancers, athletes and, in the case of Sarah Lampert’s daughter Ticaria, “an “energiser bunny”. Ticaria was less than two months away from her 13th birthday when she was killed alongside her friend. “These were beautiful girls who didn’t deserve this,” said Lampert, holding up photographs of “my Tiki torch”. “I don’t know what else to say,” she told the dozens of cameras trained on her. In a town with fewer than 2,500 full-time residents, the shooting has tested the limits and scope of what community means. The unspoken promise of life in a place such as Tumbler Ridge, as one resident put it, is that “the town carries you when you need it”. But the town is now grappling with tragedy that is wider and deeper than most could have ever imagined, and an injustice perpetrated by one of its own. Jesse Van Rootselaar, whom investigators identified as the shooter, had a history of police visits to her home to check on her mental health. Twice, she was taken for formal assessments. The premier of British Columbia, David Eby, said he had reached out to local health officials to ask for more details. At one point, police seized guns from the house but returned them after the owner – whom they did not identify – successfully appealed against the decision. These revelations have angered residents, some of whom believe more could have been done to stop the attack. But, as in many places struck by tragedy, a sense of duty among residents – and those who have descended on the town to help – has prevailed. The town’s library has transformed into a gathering place for families to avoid the glare of news cameras. The dinosaur museum – which in warmer months draws tourists with its collection of Triassic fossils – is closed to the public so that residents have a private space for grief counselling. Staff at the Twisted Seasons Bistro have donated more than $1,500 in food to paramedics, police and anyone who looked as though a warm meal or coffee could bring a sliver of joy. “We’re close here. We’re family,” said Tiffany Hildebrandt, who spent what should have been her day off taking orders and clearing tables at the cafe. For outsiders, the town has been reduced to a single building where the horror unfolded: the red-brick school. But Tumbler Ridge was a special place said Scott McKay. “There’s a reason I’ve lived here so long.” He hopes Mark Carney’s decision to attend a vigil – the first time a prime minister has ever visited Tumbler Ridge – alongside his political rival Pierre Poilievre captures the way in which tragedy has united the country. “They’re putting politics aside. They’re both fathers.” Residents have also received shreds of hopeful news. Cia Edmonds, whose daughter was airlifted to Vancouver after she was shot in the neck and head, posted on Facebook that Maya had moved for the first time in two days. “Its stimulus, a kick, a hand move, but its something!!” she wrote. “Pray for our community. Pray for support. Pray for healing. Pray that all the young minds that are forced to live in memories, that they can grieve and eventually move forward with their heads held so high.” A day earlier she wrote: “It was just a normal day. What happened.”

picture of article

French police arrest nine people over suspected €10m Louvre ticket fraud

French police investigating a suspected €10m (£8.7m) ticket fraud scheme at the Louvre museum in Paris have detained nine people, including two members of staff. “Based on the information available to the museum, we suspect the existence of a network organising large-scale fraud,” a museum spokesperson told Agence France-Presse. The Louvre, the world’s most visited museum, reported the suspected scam to police which led to the arrests. Two Louvre employees, several tour guides and one person suspected of being the mastermind were among those being held, according to the Paris prosecutors’ office. The alleged ticket scam is the latest crisis to hit the Louvre. The museum is still reeling from a heist on 19 October, when a gang raided the museum during daylight hours, breaking in through a window and stealing an estimated €88m of French crown jewels in seven minutes, before fleeing on scooters. Four men have been arrested and are under formal investigation, but the jewels have not been recovered. On Friday, the Denon gallery, where the museum’s most valuable paintings are displayed, was partly closed after a water leak, union representatives told news agencies. The Mona Lisa, the world’s most famous portrait, was not affected. The leak happened in room 707, where paintings by the French artist Charles Meynier and the Italian Renaissance artist Bernardino Luini are displayed. It was the second significant leak in less than three months. The Louvre said it was facing a rise in ticketing fraud of different types. In response it had put in place a “structured” anti-fraud plan in cooperation with staff and the police. Le Parisien reported that the suspected fraud involved tour guides who had targeted groups of Chinese visitors. The guides allegedly brought in visitors by reusing the same tickets several times for different people. Investigators are working to establish whether the network may have brought in up to 20 tour groups a day over the past decade. The Paris prosecutors’ office said surveillance and wiretaps confirmed repeated ticket reuse and an apparent strategy of splitting up tour groups to avoid paying the required “speaking fee” imposed on guides, the Associated Press reported. The investigation also pointed to suspected accomplices within the Louvre, with guides allegedly paying them cash in exchange for avoiding ticket checks, it said. A formal judicial investigation was opened last June on charges including organised fraud, money laundering, corruption, aiding illegal entry in the country as part of an organised group, and the use of forged administrative documents. The Associated Press reported that suspects are believed to have invested some of the money in real estate in France and Dubai. Authorities have seized more than €957,000 in cash, including €67,000 in foreign currency, as well as €486,000 from bank accounts. In recent months trade unions at the Louvre have launched several days of strikes, demanding urgent renovations and staffing increases, and protesting against a rise in ticket prices for most non-EU visitors, including British, American and Chinese tourists.

picture of article

Bangladesh election: BNP wins historic first election since overthrow of Hasina

The Bangladesh Nationalist party, led by Tarique Rahman, has won a sweeping victory in the country’s first election since a gen Z uprising toppled the autocratic regime of Sheikh Hasina. Results from the election commission confirmed the BNP alliance had won 212 seats, returning the party to power after 20 years, while the rival alliance, led by Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, won 77 seats. The vote had been seen as the first free and fair election held in Bangladesh for almost two decades and came after a period of significant political upheaval in the country. “This victory was expected,” said Salahuddin Ahmed, a leading BNP committee member. “It is not surprising that the people of Bangladesh have placed their trust in a party … capable of realising the dreams that our youth envisioned during the uprising.” Ahmed acknowledged a difficult task lay ahead for the new BNP government, which has pledged a new era of democracy and zero tolerance towards corruption. “This is not a time for celebration, as we will face mounting challenges in building a country free from discrimination,” he said. India was among the first countries to congratulate the BNP. Relations between the two neighbours had plummeted since the fall of Hasina and the message from the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, congratulating the BNP on its “decisive” win, was seen as extending an olive branch to the new government. “India will continue to stand in support of a democratic, progressive and inclusive Bangladesh,” said Modi, adding that he was looking forward to working with Rahman. The US and Pakistan also congratulated the BNP on the election victory. Rahman, who returned to Bangladesh in December after 17 years of exile in London, is poised to become the country’s next prime minister. He comes from one of Bangladesh’s most powerful political dynasties; the son of the former prime minister Khaleda Zia and the former president Ziaur Rahman, who was assassinated in 1981. Shafiqur Rahman, the head Jamaat-e-Islami, conceded defeat. Rahman said Jamaat would not engage in the “politics of opposition” for the sake of it. “We will do positive politics,” he told reporters. In a statement on Friday morning, Jamaat-e-Islami alleged some irregularities in vote counting in constituencies where their candidates suffered narrow losses, which it said “raises serious questions about the integrity of the results process”. Jamaat-e-Islami’s campaign had attracted controversy, particularly among female voters, over regressive comments made by Shafiqur Rahman on women’s rights and employment. Nonetheless Jamaat-e-Islami’s 68 seats respresent a historic showing for a party that had previously never won more than 12% of the vote. Together with seats won by allied parties, it will likely be a formidable opposition to the BNP. The election was the first truly competitive vote in the country in years. As documented by human rights groups and the UN, Hasina’s regime routinely suppressed dissent of its critics and political opponents, thousands who were disappeared, tortured and killed in secret jails. Many emerged only after Hasina was toppled. The past three elections under Hasina were marred by widespread allegations of vote-rigging. Following the bloody uprising that led to her downfall, many viewed the election as a crucial test of Bangladesh’s ability to restore trust in democracy and transition from public protest into tangible political reform and stability. Hasina’s Awami League party was barred from contesting and its supporters said they would boycott the vote. “More than anything, I’m hoping this BNP government remembers why people risked their lives to vote – we wanted an end to fear, not just a change of faces,” said Sadia Chowdhury, 25, a masters student at Jahangirnagar University. “If they can give us jobs based on merit, reign in political violence and prove that the law applies to everyone, then maybe we’ll finally feel this country belongs to us again.” The largely peaceful nature of polling day was seen as a huge step forward for the country. Across the capital, police officers stood watch on horses wearing blankets that bore the message: “Police are here, vote without fear.” Voters at polling stations in the capital, Dhaka, expressed their jubilation as being able to cast their vote freely and without fear for the first time in years. “Last time I voted was in 2008,” said Mohammad Shah Hossain, 46, who said he was supporting the BNP. “After that it got very difficult to come out and vote. Every time I went to the polling station, somebody had already cast my ballot.” According to the election commission, preliminary figures showed nationwide voter turnout at 59.4%, exceeding the 42% seen in the last elections. This was also the first election that had given the overseas diaspora an opportunity to vote. Postal votes, which also included officials in the country who could not return home to cast their ballot, saw an 80.11% participation rate. The student-led uprising that toppled Hasina’s 15-year regime in August 2024 had been prompted by mounting anger over widespread corruption, human rights abuses and an economic slump. The uprising, and Hasina’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters, left an estimated 1,400 people dead, according to the UN. For the past 18 months, the country has been run by an interim government under Bangladesh’s only Nobel laureate, Muhammad Yunus, who was tasked with readying the country for free and fair elections. Speaking after casting his vote in Dhaka, Yunus said the country had “ended the nightmare and begun a new dream”. The newly elected government faces an uphill task of restoring democracy, law and order and economic growth to the country. To some, the return of the BNP – a dynastic party whose previous regime was riddled with rampant corruption – did not represent the spirit of reform and hunger for change that had driven the student-led uprising against Hasina. Alongside the election, a referendum was held on a set of constitutional reforms championed by Yunus, known as the July Charter, which is designed to prevent any autocratic regimes taking power in the future by strengthening judicial independence and introducing a two-term limit for the prime minister. Early results suggested it had passed with more 65% voting yes. As the election unfolded, Hasina remained in exile in India after a war crimes tribunal sentenced her to death for crimes against humanity committed during the final throes of her regime. Her escape, and the refusal by India to send her back, has been a key issue in the frayed ties between Dhaka and New Delhi. In a statement sent after polling stations closed, Hasina denounced the election as a “carefully planned farce” and called for the results to be cancelled. Redwan Ahmed contributed reporting from Dhaka

picture of article

Reader Q&A: Jon Henley on Europe’s future – ‘Nobody really knows if it can get its act together’

Today’s opening of the Munich Security Conference marks a year since JD Vance’s blistering attack on European leaders signalled the start of a new world order – and huge questions for Europe about its future. Writing in the This Is Europe newsletter this week, Jon described this as Europe’s moment of reckoning as it faces what Emmanuel Macron called a “tsunami” of competition from China and a US that is “openly anti-European”. Along with our teams around the world, Jon has spent the past year covering the shape of Europe’s future – and what it means for nations across the continent, including France, where he is based. Jon has now finished answering your questions, but comments will stay open until 1:30pm GMT. Read the Q&A below. Question from senoj1: Do you think a two tier Europe will emerge – say France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Baltics – who will drive defence and therefore finance, with an outer ring more or less following on? Those furthest away from Russia (Spain Portugal Greece, Ireland etc?) Will a two-tier Europe lead to intra-continent squabbling and protectionism - effectively undermining the whole core concept of the EU - which is to avoid armed conflict between European nations? Jon: The answer in short is yes. The idea of a two-tier Europe has been around for decades under various names – two-tier, two-speed, multi-speed, concentric circles … It’s never taken off because, as you say, it’s been widely seen as divisive and contrary to the point of the EU. Member states have generally preferred to seek unanimity through concession and compromise. But there’s a growing realisation that the scale of the challenges the EU now faces: from China on trade, from the US on security (and trade), energy costs, the climate crisis) mean it’s going to happen sooner or later. At yesterday’s informal summit, France, Germany, Belgium and others spoke in favour of it in its latest incarnation: “enhanced cooperation”. Ursula von der Leyen, the commission president, put it succinctly: the bloc can no longer afford to move at the speed of its slowest members. So expect to see smaller groups of countries moving ahead in different areas, for example with moves to create a “savings and investment union” that would essentially keep Europeans’ savings in Europe and basically give the EU a single capital market. Question from PartingSideways: Can the EU survive in its current form – especially with the current membership? It looks like at least two countries – Hungary and Slovakia – have essentially gone back under Russia’s “protection”. Ukraine and the Middle East have that shown a united voice is almost impossible. Human rights, especially LGBTQ+ rights, are increasingly fragile in a few EU countries. How can EU/Europe defend themselves if they have such wildly differing opinions on who “the enemy” is? Jon: This goes right to the heart of the Europe’s perennial dilemma of course: the EU is a work in progress, something that’s never been attempted before, a group of nearly 30 countries *voluntarily* collaborating and pooling sovereignty in key domains so they can operate more effectively. The problem is each of those countries has its own national interests and traditional positions (such as on Israel/Palestine) to defend, and each is headed by a government that tends to think first like most governments think first, which is to say electorally: how will this play with domestic public opinion. I think actually episodes like the pandemic and Ukraine have shown that the 27 can get their act together when it really matters, and usually find a way to deal with their differences (sometimes very creatively, especially with Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán, aka the EU’s “disrupter-in-chief”.) I think Brexit certainly taught everyone that leaving is a very bad idea. I think also more recently that Donald Trump’s attempted Greenland grab and what Emmanuel Macron calls the “Chinese trade tsunami” have really focused minds on the idea that small countries are stronger together. Plus – don’t forget the troublemakers are subject to the laws of national politics themselves: there’s a very fair chance Orbán could be out of power in April. That said, the same is true in the other direction: a President Le Pen (or, more likely, Bardella) would put the EU in a whole other place. Though then again, Georgia Meloni has not proved half the problem everyone thought she would be in Europe as PM of Italy, actually quite the reverse. So I think the rather unconvincing answer is: the EU will survive, but will continue to constantly evolve. Question from Hesfalleninthewater: Is there a case for the UK to declare neutrality, like Switzerland and Ireland, and focus on our considerable soft power rather than delude ourselves that we still have the military muscle to be relevant? Jon: Actually I think the UK still has more than enough military muscle to be relevant – if it can deploy it in conjunction with the EU. The Europeans certainly think so; it’s one of the few areas where they are actively seeking to improve cooperation. The UK has the second biggest army in Europe and it’s a nuclear power, obviously. I’m not really a defence expert, my colleague Dan Sabbagh would be better placed to answer on the detail, but if the present British government is really seeking to improve relations with Europe on eg trade, then defence remains pretty much its strongest bargaining chip (despite efforts by some EU govts to keep the two sectors separate). Also from Hesfalleninthewater: Why is the issue of digital sovereignty not more widely recognised and discussed? Almost every European country’s digital (and by extension physical) infrastructure and payments system is dependent on US technology which an autocratic president could order to be switched off. Can Europe realistically shake off this digital shock collar? Jon: It’s certainly being discussed at a very high level in Europe, though perhaps not very much out loud because it’s such a massive issue. There’s a European parliament report saying the EU relies on non-EU countries for over 80% of digital products, services and infrastructure, mostly American though partly Chinese. This whole question ties into big European debates about technological sovereignty, industrial policy, “strategic autonomy” and now very clearly – given Trump’s determination to defend X, Meta, Google etc from what he calls European censorship – European trade policy. Individual governments are also acting. France, for example, has launched its own civil service video conferencing platform to avoid relying on Zoom/Google Meet etc. It’s a huge, many-faceted question to which there’s no easy answer - does the EU try to build its own alternatives, mitigate the risk, use its economic clout to enforce regulation? But safe to say it’s going to be a big bone of transatlantic tension in the years to come and unless both sides tackle it reasonably sensibly there’s a real risk to the common digital space. From Mikko_: For a layman it’s very hard to estimate how much rearming is enough – and what kind of hardware we truly need in the changing face of warfare. What are the estimates on the amount of arms we need, how fast and at what cost? Who makes these estimates and what are they based on? Jon: As I said I’m not really a defence expert either, sorry. What I can say is Nato has pledged to increase defence spending to 5% of national income by 2035 and the EU (which has 23 members in Nato) is in the middle of an €800bn military spending plan (that includes a €150bn loan secured against unused funds in the EU budget, plus more flexibility in EU fiscal rules so member states can spend €650bn themselves - so it depends on member states’ willingness to spend). The problem is that Europe has taken a half-century “holiday from history” under the formerly reliable US defence umbrella and nobody really knows if it can get its act together. It’s not an easy area for Europe – we’ve always struggled to join up defence spending, so there’s been lots of inefficient duplication and lots of different systems. And nobody’s ever bene able to say whether a “European army” should be EU-only or more broadly European, a new force commanded from Brussels, an improved version of existing joint forces. Once again, though, Greenland has really focused minds. From Notwithpastry: Is there now a tacit agreement on spheres of interest between the super powers? If so, who gets what? Jon: That’s a question that needs a book to answer. China, the US and obviously (though it’s not a superpower) Russia have laid claim to pretty clear spheres of interest. I think the most relevant answer to this discussion is that the current state of the world is pushing Europe quite fast to the realisation that it needs to properly join the superpower club, and in its own very European way, which is to say haltingly, it’s starting to do the necessary (deepen and strengthen single market, reboot its economy, look after its own defence). Whether it will succeed is another question From ianhenrynw3: How serious do you think the risk of Russia invading the Baltic states, especially Latvia, is? And, do you think the proposed “Made in Europe” EU policy is designed to be a purely protectionist measure to “save” dying industrial sectors from competition from China? Do you think it will undermine the UK-EU TCA by erecting a new set of barriers to trade between the UK and the EU? Jon: Hi Ian, it’s hard to answer the first question because until the day he actually did it, everyone was convinced Vladimir Putin wouldn’t invade Ukraine. I don’t think he will invade a Nato and EU member state, but he certainly could. What he’s very likely to do though is increase the hybrid warfare, destabilisation tactics he’s already deploying and see what happens next. The proposed “Made in Europe” policy is quite new and not fully defined yet, though it featured high on the agenda at the informal summit yesterday. For those not familiar with it, the idea is to favour European companies in strategic sectors by imposing requirements on the EU and national governments to prioritise locally manufactured goods in public (both EU and national) contracts. The commission will publish proposed European content targets next month for key products like solar panels and electric cars. It’s long been a divisive subject – broadly, France and the southern European countries are in favour; Germany and the more free-trade-inclined northern European members against it. Macron sees European preference as defensive not protectionist, and essential faced with a China whose strategy is to achieve outright economic dominance through massive state subsidies. Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, doesn’t want any more EU regulations in general and favours a “made with Europe” policy works with Europe’s responsible trading partners. Von der Leyen has said any buy European policy would need to tread a very fine line between protecting/encouraging EU industry and pursuing open markets and new trade deals. I think it’s clear that as Macron says Europe will be “swept aside” industrially unless it does something - as things stand it can’t compete with the scale of Chinese subsidies. But it’s a very delicate line to walk. On the UK/EU agreement, Britain will obviously have to negotiate to be part of any “European preference” scheme or it will absolutely find itself left even more out in the cold. EU members are broadly open to the UK being included, certainly in some sectors – Macron has said the club should be as big as possible – but as ever, there will be a price and it will depend if Britain is prepared to pay it. From first-time commenter Wulf_Sternhammer: Is the EU as a political entity a barrier to European states mobilising effectively in the face of the challenges before them, eg. Ukraine, China, immigration, economics. Will this force the states to abandon or fundamentally change the current arrangement? What could that look like? Jon: Think we pretty much covered this one in the very first answer, but I’d just add that there’s a very common and very big misconception about how the EU works – it’s the European Council, ie the heads of state and government of the member states, that really pull the strings, not the commission. The commission pitches ideas, then executes *what the member states agree on*. So the EU as a “political entity” is just an assembly of its members, who almost never agree on everything but can usually agree on something (or find a way round their disagreements). As described above, I think “enhanced cooperation” (which worked for the latest €90bn tranche of funding for Ukraine, for example) could prove a really useful mechanism. From Froghole2: Should Europe now be making a more determined effort to re-engage with the global south and, if so, on what terms which can appeal to the economic aspirations of the global south? Jon: Yes, absolutely. It really has to if only because if it doesn’t it’s (again) going to be hit for six by the more transactional powers: China, which has been busy for a decade already with Belt and Road, plus a newly protectionist US. It needs to reengage to stay geopolitically relevant; to secure (this is important) critical supply chains, especially minerals for the green transition; to access the world’s youngest, fastest growing workforce and consumer market; to help manage migration. It obviously has to do it in a very different way to in the past - the donor/recipient relationship, unfavourable and unilaterally imposed trade conditions, lectures on European values etc have left a major trust deficit towards Europe which is very evident from polling in the global south. So there is actually quite an interesting plan for this, no real time to go into it in detail here but it’s called global gateway and in brief it focuses on investments in “soft” infrastructure (digital networks, green energy grids, health systems) rather than bridges and motorways, emphasising technology transfer and local skill-building, co-designing projects with local governments, that kind of thing. It’s a €300bn project, we’ll see how it pans out. But there’s a lot of ground to make up, obviously. From TomTom888: Orbán has sought to undermine Europe and side with Putin time and time again. Is it time to let Hungary go? Possibly other member states, eg. Slovakia? Jon: Ah the perennial problem of Viktor Orbán. The EU is partly to blame for the way Orbán is now (it, or more specifically the conservative group in the European parliament that basically humoured him for far too long), and it’s since been reluctant to really use the biggest weapons in its armoury (getting really aggressive with financial conditionality, ie withholding even more money; stripping him of voting rights or at least veto rights). It’s, again, the EU’s biggest hurdle: it’s a union of 27 very different countries each with their own national interests whose DNA dictates concession and compromise. I think many are quietly hoping he will lose April’s elections and the problem will go away of its own accord, much as it has with Law & Justice (PiS) in Poland. If not, you’re right, firmer action will need to be contemplated. From Samsoun: What do you see for the future of US military bases in the UK and the EU? Does the presence of US troops in other countries actually threaten national security now rather than support it? Jon: I think there’s understandably an enormous reluctance across Europe to undertake any move at the moment that risks straining transatlantic tensions any further than they already are, and kicking US troops out of Europe would certainly do that. There’s a very major readjustment going on, a realisation that Europe absolutely needs to massively build up its own military capability but at the same time an understanding that the continent’s security still depends to a large extent on the US. There have been very strong rumours, since to some extent denied, that Washington plans to pull its troops out of its own accord. It seems likely there will now be a few minor pull-outs and some reshuffling, but no mass withdrawal. There are plenty on the continent who still harbour the hope that the US will somehow “return to normal” in a few years’ time, but even those who are convinced it will not – who are also plentiful – consider that provocation is probably not the best course of action right now. From Nodules: Will further federalisation of the EU be necessary to ensure more coherent policy-making? Jon: Federalism and federalisation are such tricky terms … anathema to many. I think Macron was quite interesting this week in the big interview he gave to half a dozen European newspapers, he talked about “pragmatic federalism” which he described as “uniting quickly and deciding together”. There’s very little chance of the treaties being changed any time soon, so Europe needs to work within its existing structures and find ways forward - as mentioned in a couple of answers above, “enchanced cooperation” looks quite hopeful. From first time commenter Adwardian: Why aren’t more mainstream politicians promoting a positive, pan-European message that emphasises aspirational unity to counterbalance the (negative-coded) defense unity? For France specifically: as the only nuclear power in the EU, shouldn’t candidates for next year’s watershed presidential election be discussing France’s role as a leading military force to help shape that unity? Jon: This is such an interesting question. I saw it in the UK during the Brexit campaign and I’ve seen it all over Europe, including very much in France: national politicians are extraordinarily reluctant to make positive arguments for Europe, and citizens are extraordinarily ignorant about how the EU actually works and what it actually does for them (and at what cost). Europe obviously has its faults (and many of them), but it is such an easy scapegoat in national politics and the subject of so much disinformation that until that issue is resolved this issue is going to remain. The EU’s biggest single problem is its inability to sell itself. We should start teaching what the EU is (warts and all, but *true* rather than fabricated warts) and what it does in primary school. From OleksandrKolosov: Is Brexit reversible? Jon: UK-EU rapprochement is certainly possible quite soon. Brexit itself may be reversible, but not for a good while. It will depend entirely on UK politics, what the UK asks for, and what it can bring itself to offer in return. At the moment there’s still a very strong strain of exceptionalism in British politics which means the “it’ll have to be on our terms” discourse still holds sway.

picture of article

These charts show how Trump is isolating the US on the world stage

Donald Trump’s return to the White House has accelerated a profound shift in the global order, according to new analysis. A report from Focaldata, which analyses UN voting records, reveals how Washington’s “America First” agenda has started to redraw the geopolitical map in favour of China. In 2026, the world is now diplomatically closer to Beijing than it has been in recent memory, with significant shifts in alignments taking place during the start of Trump’s second presidential term. Focaldata’s analysis used UN general assembly votes act as a proxy for geopolitical alignment: countries that consistently vote the same way on contested resolutions tend to have common interests. By measuring how closely each country’s voting record correlates with those of the US or China, researchers have been able to map how the geopolitical centre of gravity is further away from Washington and closer to Beijing than at any other point this century. The total number of countries strongly aligned with the US has crashed under Trump, in contrast to China, which has maintained its allies. When comparing all of Trump’s years in the White House, including his first term, with those of his immediate predecessors – Barack Obama and Joe Biden – the number of countries strongly aligned with the US has collapsed, from 46 to just seven. The number of countries closely in China’s orbit has remained broadly constant. Though most of the countries that have been solidly in the US camp still vote with Washington, they have recently done so with far less regularity. Some of the biggest movements have been among traditional US allies in Europe, North America and Asia, who now find themselves voting with Washington less frequently. Canada, South Korea, Japan, Germany and the UK dramatically deviated from the US in terms of UN voting patterns in 2025. The research gives each country’s voting record a score, from +1, meaning always voting with China in the UN, to -1, meaning always voting with the US. A key flashpoint has been Ukraine. In February 2025, the US sided with Russia, Belarus and North Korea to vote against a resolution condemning Russia for the Ukraine war. Another strain has been Israel’s war in Gaza. In June 2025, the US voted against a resolution that called for the protection of civilians and upholding of legal and humanitarian obligations in Gaza. The US sided with Israel against the resolution, while the vast majority of western countries supported the passing of the resolution. China also voted in favour. The US vetoed a securty council resolution for an unconditional ceasefire, disagreeing with Russia, China, France and the UK. There have also been resolutions on issues such as the environment, health and migration, which China and most western countries supported, but the US opposed. As a result, Nato and European states, once the backbone of American global influence, are now voting less reliably with the US. The shift is largely because of the US taking increasingly controversial stances on the world stage that isolates it from its longstanding allies. Meanwhile, China has continued to preserve close relationships with its allies, and has begun cultivating new alliances. This year has brought foreign visits by the Canadian and British prime ministers for the first time in eight years. On a regional level, Asia, Africa and South America tend to be more aligned with China – though the latter began to move more towards the US during Trump’s first term. This shift has happened less because of increasing pro-China sentiment in Europe, and more due to the US and Europe voting together less frequently. The report says that the UK’s alignment with the US in UN votes is at its lowest level since records began, with a steep drop in the past year. This has coincided with hopes that the UK can thaw icy relations between London and Beijing. The report highlighted that only Argentina and Israel were aligned with the Trump White House in 2025. At the same time, China’s voting bloc of 73 countries has broadly stayed intact. The combined economic power of Chinese-aligned countries is higher than that of US-aligned countries under Trump – in contrast to the Obama and Biden years, when the combined economic power of the US’s western allies was superior. Patrick Flynn, a data journalist and author of the report, said: “Our report uncovered not only how quickly the global order is shifting, but also the structure of influence between the two major poles of the US and China. “We liken China’s network to a beehive, diffuse and unlikely to collapse from individual rifts. In contrast, US influence is more like a Jenga tower, heavily reliant on a solid bloc of European countries that are quickly moving away from their transatlantic allies.” This shift is likely to continue. When countries are plotted by projected economic growth, the fastest-growing economies cluster closer to Beijing than Washington. These are often located in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Flynn said: “Weighting our axis by historic GDP levels, we see that the centre of gravity has been slowly moving towards China over the last 30 years. “With China’s outsized influence among the fastest-growing economies, the global centre of gravity could well move into Chinese territory for the first time in the late 2030s.”