US and Ukraine announce Black Sea truce, contingent on Kremlin’s sanctions relief conditions.

In Short

The US announced a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea, contingent on Russia lifting certain sanctions.

Both sides have committed to observing the truce, yet achieving a complete ceasefire remains uncertain, with potential future concessions from Russia.

The United States announced that Russia and Ukraine have reached a ceasefire agreement in the Black Sea, conditioned on the removal of specific sanctions by the Kremlin.

The agreement emerged from three days of technical talks in Saudi Arabia, focusing on ensuring safe navigation in the Black Sea and preventing military use of commercial shipping. The US pledged assistance in restoring Russian access to global agricultural markets and reducing maritime insurance costs.

President Donald Trump noted that conditions from the Kremlin would be considered, particularly regarding sanctions on banks involved in agricultural exports. The truce would take effect upon lifting restrictions on the Russian Agricultural Bank and others, tying them to the SWIFT international payment system.

Ukrainian forces

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced an immediate observance of the truce by Ukrainian forces. The two sides also agreed on mechanisms to enforce a ban on attacks against energy infrastructure, effective for 30 days.

While the talks advanced some agreements, achieving a full ceasefire remains challenging, as Russia may seek to extract further concessions from the US.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov expressed confidence in US support for compliance with the agreements. However, full ceasefire timelines proposed by the Trump administration appear overly ambitious to some officials.

Zelenskiy confirmed Ukraine’s commitment to a full ceasefire, highlighting the contrast between Ukraine’s intentions and Russia’s position.

Trump’s team reviewed accidental disclosure of airstrike plans to journalist via Signal thread, sparking criticism and demands for investigation.

In Short

The Trump administration is investigating how Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was mistakenly added to a group chat about U.S. airstrike plans in Yemen. The incident has drawn widespread criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for mishandling classified information and raised serious national security concerns.

The Trump administration is currently reviewing how Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat discussing U.S. airstrike plans against Houthi militants in Yemen.

The National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the message thread and announced an investigation into how Goldberg’s number was included. Goldberg initially expressed skepticism about the texts and considered the possibility of disinformation campaigns.

He received messages from high-ranking officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, later sharing some exchanges and screenshots in his article.

Left the group

Goldberg noted that he left the group after concluding the conversation was genuine. Within the discussion, a user identified as “JD Vance” raised concerns about the airstrike plans and their broader implications.

Following the article’s publication, Democratic lawmakers condemned the incident, calling it a serious national security breach. Criticism extended to the transmission of classified information through unsecured channels, with demands for investigations.

Even some Republicans criticized the administration’s handling of classified information. Amidst this, Trump stated he was unaware of the situation when questioned. The unfolding events highlight significant concerns about national security practices within the administration.

Democrats have likened the incident to amateurish behaviour, suggesting the need for tighter safeguards in handling sensitive information moving forward.

Heathrow Airport should have stayed operational post-fire, but faced extensive disruptions and criticism over crisis management and power dependency.

In Short

Heathrow Airport could have stayed open despite a nearby electrical substation fire that caused 1,300 flight cancellations. Both Heathrow and the UK government have launched investigations, while airline stocks fell due to concerns over financial impacts.

Heathrow Airport may have remained open on Friday despite a fire at a nearby electrical substation, according to Britain’s National Grid.

The London airport had previously closed due to the fire affecting its power supply. National Grid’s CEO, John Pettigrew, stated that although one substation was damaged, two others provided sufficient power to ensure operations could continue.

Heathrow officials, however, argued that a safe restart of operations was not feasible after such a major disruption. They emphasised the complexity of the airport’s systems, which required careful management during the downtime.

Alternative options

Heathrow’s CEO, Thomas Woldbye, highlighted that while alternative substations existed, switching them on was time-consuming. He pointed out that the fire occurred outside of Heathrow’s control and required significant response efforts from the airport.

An internal investigation has been initiated by Heathrow, with the UK government also planning a separate inquiry into the incident. The disruption caused around 1,300 flight cancellations or diversions, leading to substantial financial implications for airlines.

In the aftermath, airline stocks faced a decline in value, reflecting investor concerns about the incident’s impact on travel and revenue. The International Air Transport Association criticized Heathrow’s emergency response, questioning the airport’s reliance on a single power source.