Vladimir Putin, sitting beside Narendra Modi at the start of talks, said he expected a “fruitful” day tackling a “a great number of documents”, including in areas of defence, technology, aircraft and space exploration, AFP reports. “India-Russia friendship is a time-tested one that has greatly benefitted our people,” Modi wrote in a post on social media, accompanying a photograph of them grinning together inside the vehicle.
Good morning. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was designed to be an institution that crunches numbers quietly in the background. Instead, over the past week, it has found itself dragged kicking and screaming into the political spotlight. On the day attention should have been fixed on Rachel Reeves’s economic plans, many instead watched the fallout from the OBR’s accidental early publication of her budget. After the leak there followed days of anger and disbelief, which culminated in the resignation of the OBR’s chair, Richard Hughes. This uproar followed months of briefings and separate leaks about the OBR in the run up to the budget, painting a picture that the forecasts were fluctuating wildly, and the treasury was trying to respond to these swings, making the budget process far more chaotic. The OBR’s David Miles later told MPs that these briefings were not only wrong, but the volume and inaccuracy of these leaks were so serious the watchdog feared for its reputation. Now, as the search begins for a new figure to lead one of the most powerful and thankless institutions in British economic life, a sharper question is being asked, largely from the left. Is the OBR still fit for purpose, or has this episode exposed a case for abolishing it altogether? To explore the case for and against, I spoke to Heather Stewart, the Guardian’s economics editor. That’s after the headlines: Five big stories UK news | Vladimir Putin is “morally responsible” for Dawn Sturgess’s novichok death, an inquiry has found. Sturgess died after spraying herself with a nerve agent smuggled into the UK by Russian agents. UK politics | A group of Holocaust survivors have demanded Nigel Farage tell the truth and apologise for the antisemitic comments that fellow pupils of Dulwich College allege he made toward Jewish pupils, as the Reform leader turned on broadcasters for questioning him about the growing scandal. Eurovision | Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands will boycott next year’s Eurovision after Israel was given the all-clear to compete in the 2026 song contest despite calls by several participating broadcasters for its exclusion over the war in Gaza. UK politics | Lord Evans of Watford, suspended by the House of Lords for breaking lobbying rules after a Guardian investigation, is now facing claims that he received at least $1m (£760,000) in an allegedly corrupt deal. US news | The New York Times is suing the US defense department and the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. The lawsuit argues restrictions imposed by the Trump administration violate free speech protections. In depth: ‘Even in normal times, economic forecasts are just not very accurate’ The OBR was first created as a public body in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government, in the aftermath of the global financial crash. It was a time when Britain’s public finances were under intense scrutiny (remember that infamous ‘there’s no money left’ note?). The then chancellor, George Osborne, made a political case that former prime minister Gordon Brown had wrecked the UK economy by spending too much money. Many were persuaded. But, Heather Stewart argues, it was politically expedient for the coalition government to lay the blame for Britain’s economic problems solely at Labour’s door, while sidelining the central role of the global financial crash. This argument was necessary to justify the tough medicine being offered by the coalition government: austerity. Part of the Conservatives’ case was that Gordon Brown had massaged the figures during his time in office, producing optimistic forecasts that dressed up the state of the economy, Heather explains. To prevent this happening again, Osborne announced that the forecasts underpinning each budget would be handed to an independent organisation. “There’s a funny dance between the Treasury and the OBR because the Treasury can only publish a budget if the OBR says the sums add up,” Heather says. “So if the Treasury says ‘we might do this’, the OBR might say ‘that’ll bring in this amount, but it might slow growth’; it has this effect and you go back to the drawing board. So, it’s an external watchdog, but it works very closely with the Treasury.” *** How accurate are these forecasts? The OBR is obliged by law to publish two forecasts a year. These are notorious for their inaccuracy but, as Heather tells me, that is not necessarily the OBR’s fault. She pointed to the succession of economic shocks no one saw coming after the coalition years: Brexit, Covid, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices soaring. “Even in normal times, economic forecasts are just not very accurate. So it’s not that the OBR is particularly rubbish, it’s just that it’s really difficult forecasting the economy,” Heather says. Can the chancellor simply ignore these forecasts? In theory, yes, but politically, it is far more complicated. Heather pointed to this year’s spring statement, when the OBR told Rachel Reeves she would fail to meet her fiscal rules in five years’ time. Technically, Reeves did not have to respond immediately. “But she felt she had to respond to it, she had to show she was going to meet the rules and in fact implemented welfare cuts that then infuriated Labour MPs and had to be reversed,” Heather says. So why doesn’t Reeves just ignore the OBR? Heather says two forces currently restrain the chancellor from doing so: the country’s high national debt and high borrowing costs, the latter of which is determined by the bond markets. “Reeves will have felt that if she ignored the OBR, that might cause a sell off in the bond market and that would make borrowing costs go up. That would be reminiscent of the Liz Truss period, who decried the OBR as part of the establishment plot holding back growth and tax cuts. Truss did her mini budget without a forecast from the OBR and we remember how that ended,” Heather says. Labour MP Andy MacNae has called for the OBR to produce just one forecast a year, likening its predictions to weather forecasts. While the watchdog has resisted this idea, and doing so would require a change in the law, Heather explains Reeves will implement some small, yet notable changes. The OBR will still publish two forecasts a year, but from next spring Reeves has said its assessment will no longer be used to judge her against her fiscal rules. Instead, it will set out what the budget balance is expected to be over a set period, without issuing a formal pass-or-fail verdict. *** Is the OBR right wing? There is also criticism that the OBR is too conservative in its forecasts. “There are left-wing economists who say it was basically set up by Osborne to rubber stamp austerity,” Heather says. One of the most prominent critiques comes from the New Economics Foundation, which argues the watchdog does not give sufficient weight to the benefits of public investment. The group says the OBR relies too heavily on the idea of “crowding out”; the assumption that increased public spending causes the private sector to retreat, Heather explains. The New Economics Foundation has also warned that the current system “privileges the OBR with a power that has received little democratic scrutiny”. The organisation has called for forecasting to be taken back into the Treasury, with an external Office for Fiscal Transparency acting more as a quality check and the chancellor making the final decision. Labour MP Jeevun Sandher, who is an economist, has gone further, arguing that the OBR is stuck in a ‘doom loop’ because of its central assumption that public spending cuts do not significantly reduce growth. “There is definitely a worry that the OBR doesn’t give enough credit to public spending and the impact that’s likely to have. Having said that, they’ve just had to revise their forecast because they’ve been systematically too optimistic about productivity, which is one of the big determinants of growth,” Heather says. *** Should the OBR be abolished? The Labour government is keen to project the idea that its economic decisions are grounded in people’s lives, not just the numbers. That message rang hollow, however, after the turmoil that followed the spring statement. Heather recalls an interview she did with Liz Kendall, then serving as pensions secretary, who was adamant that impending welfare cuts were based on wanting to help people, rather than to meet targets. “But it was really clear they had started from a spreadsheet and it was basically an OBR spreadsheet,” Heather adds. “The focus was on how do we meet this target; which package of reforms could we do? And that is a really, really bad way to make policy.” Still, Heather warns there would be consequences of scrapping the OBR, on the admittedly dull but immensely powerful bond markets. “We’ve got to look credible to these investors. If you say we’re going to scrap this institution that checks our homework, I would say it’s not sending a great signal at this particular point in time.” She also questions whether abolition would be as revolutionary as it sounds. “They are only economic forecasters,” she says. What often goes unspoken, says Heather, is that chancellors set their own fiscal rules in the first place. While much has been written about how tightly Reeves has constrained herself with hers, in the end the decision to change them still rests with her – as does when to heed a forecast, and when to hold course. What else we’ve been reading This piece by Anna Moore, on a small group of women who fought to criminalise intimate image abuse and won, in what was a massive victory for victims, is a beacon of light in the otherwise grim world of deepfake porn. Karen Your Party’s founding conference was as acrimonious and chaotic as its launch, but is all hope lost? Andy Beckett argues they may have not yet squandered this historic opening for a socialist force in parliament. Aamna Esther Addley explores the English neighbourhoods still grappling with the fraught and highly divisive practice of both raising and removing flags, that one resident likened to “a mini battle of Cable street”. Karen Much has been written about the AI boom, and much of it incredibly boring, but this feature by the Guardian’s Dara Kerr on the new gold rush in the form of datacentres in the American West is a gripping and terrifying read. Aamna While the consumption of ultra-processed foods is particularly high in the West, the ubiquity of these harmful foods is global. So too is the battle by parents to keep their children away from them. Karen Sport Football | Aitana Bonmatí has been voted the best female football player on the planet by our panel of 127 experts, ahead of Mariona Caldentey and Alessia Russo. Formula One | Lando Norris says he would not want McLaren to have to use team orders to aid him in winning his first world championship at the season finale in Abu Dhabi this weekend. Football | Ahead of tomorrow’s draw for the World Cup 2026 we analyse the worst-case scenarios for England, Scotland, USA and Australia. Something for the weekend Our critics’ roundup of the best things to watch, read, play and listen to right now Music Dove Ellis: Blizzard | ★★★★★ With shades of Jeff and Tim Buckley, Galway-born indie engima Ellis writes tunes so strong they feel like old friends. On his glorious debut album, which arrives with no biographical notes, Ellis’s remarkable vocals can settle into a dreamy falsetto so fragile he could be dancing on a pin, and then suddenly perform a handbrake turn into intensity, even anger. The way the arrangements (including saxophone and drums) dart around his voice in ornate little counter-melodies recalls fellow Irishman Van Morrison, and recent single To the Sandals noticeably nods to Joan Armatrading’s Love and Affection. The 22-year-old’s lyrics frequently seem to flutter between hope and despair, before building to a purifying conclusion. Dave Simpson TV What’s the Monarchy for?: David Dimbleby | ★★★★☆ Dimbleby’s demolition of the royals is hugely entertaining. The opening episode cleaves closest to the titular question – parts two and three are more like “Is the Monarchy a Giant Ponzi Scheme?” and “Are the Monarchy Personally Repellent?”, respectively – examining the power the monarchy has and how it wields it. Much of the hour is spent trying to ascertain whether King Charles influences government policy by advocating for his own beliefs. He certainly has the ear of politicians: the prime minister takes weekly trips to Buckingham Palace, while nobody interviewed denies that the king’s letters are routinely placed at the top of the relevant minister’s pile. Dimbleby ably drives a cart and horses through sophistry from Dominic Grieve, who during his time as attorney general refused a freedom of information request from the Guardian to publish Charles’s letters. Jack Seale Film It Was Just An Accident: Jafar Panahi | ★★★★☆ Jafar Panahi, the veteran Iranian auteur and democracy campaigner, who continues to be arrested and imprisoned and to defy the law, finding loopholes so his movies can be made and shown abroad, brings us a story of state violence and revenge. A man driving at night with his heavily pregnant wife and young daughter hits a dog with his car. What follows is a grotesque, almost dreamlike sequence of scenes in various locations, including a remote desert with a tree that local hothead Hamid says looks like a stage-set for Waiting for Godot. The plot twists and turns are startling, almost unreal; can it be true that normal people like this can countenance violence? But if that seems implausible, perhaps that is because we don’t grasp the violence through which they have already lived. Peter Bradshaw Art Saodat Ismailova: As We Fade | ★★★★★ Be prepared to have your heart stop on entering Ismailova’s first solo show at Baltic, Gateshead. The Uzbek artist and film-maker has created an exhilarating, terrifying and unforgettable show. The room is dark. Four works are arranged around a padded black square in the centre for sitting or lying on – a reference to the void, something Ismailova has been fascinated with for two decades. She grew up during perestroika, a period of widespread political, social and economic reform in the late 1980s, when Soviet ideology began to collapse leaving a void in the culture. The four works sing to each other; they crackle, scream and collide. It is elemental – images of fire, ice and cascading currents of water recur, while you can almost feel the sand whipping the back of your neck as you listen to the desert wind. Charlotte Jansen The front pages The Guardian leads with “Farage hits out as fresh claims of ‘vindictive’ teenage racism emerge”. The Mail goes with “Farage’s ‘It Ain’t Half Hot Mum’ attack on BBC double standards”. The Financial Times reports “Expat entrepreneur’s record £9mn gift thrusts Reform into fundraising lead”. The i quotes Liz Kendall with “‘Ignorant’ to call Labour the party of welfare, claims Cabinet minister”. The Telegraph leads with “Lammy breaks ranks on Brexit”. The Times reports “Deal to give frozen £8bn from Russia to Ukraine”. The Mirror looks into an inquiry into the 2018 Salisbury poisonings with “Dawn’s blood on his hands”. Finally the Sun leads with comments from a former MasterChef judge: “John Torode: I’m in therapy over TV axe”. Today in Focus The World Cup’s Maga makeover Guardian sportswriter Jonathan Liew on how football went about courting Donald Trump – and how it might regret it when the World Cup comes to the US next summer. Cartoon of the day | Ben Jennings The Upside A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad He was the first scientist to dive at the north pole, has taken a Prince and prime minister under icy Arctic waters and helped to locate the wreck of the Titanic. At 88, the famed undersea explorer, Dr Joe MacInnis, once described as a “rip roaring, life loving” young Canadian, has decades of adventures to share: the time he and a Russian explorer, Anatoly Sagalevich, were trapped two and a half miles below the surface by a wayward telephone wire from the Titanic, or when he was part of the team that first filmed narwhal, bowhead and beluga whales underwater. Now the physician says that working alongside pioneers like Jacques Cousteau and Robert Ballard, looking to push the limits of human possibility, has given him a relentless optimism and hope. Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday Bored at work? And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply
Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, will meet the European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, for emergency talks on Friday as the EU races to save its sorely needed financing plan for Ukraine. The three leaders will dine in private in Brussels, a German government spokesperson said on Thursday, as Belgian officials continued to express strong opposition to the scheme, which involves the unprecedented use of frozen Russian assets. With Russia’s attacks intensifying, Washington pushing for a peace deal that favours Moscow and Kyiv fast running out of money and Europe struggling for influence at US-led talks, the bloc must find a solution or suffer a major blow to its credibility. Two weeks before a crucial 18 December EU summit, von der Leyen on Wednesday proposed two main options for the EU to raise the tens of billions of euros Ukraine needs to keep funding its struggling military and basic services against Russia’s war. The EU has pledged to keep Ukraine afloat next year. It aims to raise €90bn (£80bn) to meet about two-thirds of Kyiv’s needs for 2026 and 2027, von der Leyen said, giving Ukraine the means to negotiate a peace deal “from a position of strength”. The bloc could either borrow against its shared budget on the international markets, the commission president said, or issue a loan secured by immobilised Russian assets – mainly held in Belgium – that Kyiv would repay from Russia’s postwar reparations. There are, however, obstacles to both alternatives. Many member states are not keen on common borrowing, which would have to be repaid. It would also need unanimity, which may prove difficult given Hungary’s past opposition to funding for Ukraine. The frozen assets plan, floated almost two months ago, continues to be fiercely rejected by Belgium, which hosts about two-thirds of the estimated €290bn of Russian assets held in the west at Euroclear, a securities depository in Brussels. “This is quite a big moment,” a diplomat from a founding member state said. “It’s never easy to reach agreement at 27, we know that. But if we can’t do something as existential as funds for Ukraine, we’ll really have failed – both us, and Ukraine.” The logic of using the assets as security for a huge loan to Ukraine – not confiscating them, which most experts agree would be illegal – is that it would show Moscow that Ukraine could keep fighting for years, putting Kyiv in a better negotiating position. But De Wever’s government has repeatedly argued that should Russia decide to launch retaliatory legal action, or demand its money back because the sanctions against it have been lifted, it risks being left on the hook for billions, alone. “We have the frustrating feeling of not having been heard. The texts the commission tabled do not address our concerns in a satisfactory manner,” Belgium’s foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, said on Wednesday, calling for joint EU borrowing instead. De Wever, a Flemish nationalist, has gone further. The Belgian prime minister told an event in Brussels this week it was “a nice idea, stealing from the bad guy to give to the good guy. But stealing the frozen assets of another country has never been done.” He added: “Even during the second world war, we did not confiscate Germany’s money. In a war, you freeze sovereign assets. And at the end, the losing side must give up all or part of those assets to compensate the victors.” But, De Wever claimed, it was “a fairytale, a complete illusion” to “imagine that Russia will lose this war in Ukraine”. Moscow had “let us know that if the assets are seized, Belgium, and me personally, will feel the effects for eternity”. The commission has insisted the plan complies fully with EU and international law and a “three-tier defence” would shield Belgium from legal jeopardy, an argument von der Leyen and Merz are likely to advance at Friday evening’s dinner. In an op-ed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper on Thursday, the German chancellor warned his fellow EU leaders that the decisions they made over the coming days would “decide the question of European independence”. An “imperialist Russia” was “striving to extend its sphere of influence into the states of Europe” and “preparing militarily for a conflict with the west”, Merz said, adding that it was vital to “send an unambiguous signal to Moscow” by using the assets. He said Belgium should be given assurances the risks of the plan would be borne fairly by all EU member states, with each country “incurring an equal share of the risk, as a function of their respective economic performance”. Europe must “decide and shape what happens on our continent”, he added. “The financial resources of an aggressor have been lawfully frozen within the jurisdiction of our constitutional state. What we decide now will determine the future of Europe.”
Bring out your cheese rolling, your niche crafts, steel drumming or Burns Night suppers for these are part of the UK’s intangible cultural heritage, and could be in line for official United Nations recognition. Eighteen months after the UK finally signed up to a UN list of recognised cultural traditions from around the world, ministers have launched public callout for ideas about which domestic variants should be submitted to the organisation. The intangible cultural heritage list, curated by Unesco, the UN’s cultural and educational body, already cites many hundreds of examples of events, crafts, cuisines and other phenomena from the 180-plus nations signed up, covering everything from the couscous dishes of north Africa to Costa Rican ox-herding and avalanche management techniques in the Alps. The list was created under a UN convention in 2003, but the UK ratified this only in June last year, and thus far has no heritage items on the register. Fiona Twycross, a Labour peer who is a minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), called on Friday for people from across the UK to suggest things that could be submitted to Unesco, with separate listings for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as a UK-wide combined one. “From Highland dancing to cheese rolling and the carving of Welsh love spoons, these traditions form the rich tapestry of UK culture and identity,” she said, asking for submissions before the end of February next year. “These crafts, customs and celebrations are often what makes people feel proud of who they are, where they come from and where they live. They also boost local economies and businesses. “Whatever living heritage communities value, we want to hear about it. I encourage people to get together and share their traditions through this national conversation.” Possible examples mentioned by DCMS included widespread crafts and cultural activities such as tartan weaving and dry-stone walling or ceilidh dancing, Burns Night suppers and the Eisteddfod, a festival of Welsh culture, to more niche activities such as the dramatic and perilous annual chase for a cheese rolled down Cooper’s Hill in Gloucestershire. Other suggested inclusions could come from immigrant communities, for example Notting Hill carnival and steel-drumming, the announcement suggested. One condition for a nomination is that it should include involvement from a community or group involved in it, the statement added. The aim will be to launch the first UK inventory next summer. After an initial consultation on how the domestic system should work, it was decided that submissions must fall into one of seven categories: oral expressions; performing arts; social practices; nature, land and spirituality; crafts; sports and games; and culinary practices.
The US is considering a much broader range of sanctions on the belligerents in the war in Sudan, in a tacit acknowledgment of the inability of the US envoy Massad Boulos to persuade the parties to accept a ceasefire. Last week Donald Trump announced that work had begun to end the war after a personal request for his direct intervention from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. But Boulos, the father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany, has in fact been trying for months to persuade the Sudanese army and its rival, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, to back a ceasefire, to little end. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, told a cabinet meeting at the White House on Wednesday that Trump was “the only leader in the world capable of resolving the Sudan crisis”. An Arab diplomat said: “Trump injects momentum into peace processes. It’s what we do with it that matters.” The Guardian understands that the warring parties have been told it is highly likely that Trump will use a far broader range of punitive sanctions on groups that he regards as standing in the way of a ceasefire. Norway’s foreign ministry is preparing to invite a broad range of Sudanese society to Oslo in the coming weeks to map out the parameters of how a civilian government could be restored in the event of the conflict ending. According to the UN, the war has killed 40,000 people – though some rights groups say the death toll is significantly higher – and has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with more than 14 million people displaced. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have broadly supported the army, while the RSF has been backed by the United Arab Emirates. The effectiveness of Trump’s intervention may lie in privately persuading the UAE that its position – which it denies, despite evidence compiled by the UN, independent experts and reporters – is counterproductive. It may also require the Saudis to weaken their insistence on the continuance of Sudan’s “legitimate institutions” – diplomatic code for preserving the existing Islamist-influenced army. The belated move of Sudan up the US agenda came as the UN human rights chief warned that since 25 October, when the RSF captured the city of Bara in North Kordofan, there had been at least 269 civilian deaths from aerial strikes, artillery shelling and summary executions. After the intervention of the Saudi crown prince, it is likely the US will be willing to broaden sanctions against the warring parties, as well as take steps to enforce and extend the widely abused UN arms embargo on Darfur. So far US sanctions have been confined to the RSF and army leaderships, a small group of Sudanese Islamists linked to the army, and some UAE-based firms. On 21 September the so-called quad – the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt – put forward a plan for a three-month humanitarian truce leading to a nine-month political process and resulting in civilian rule. The RSF pretended to accept, but continued fighting, and the army angrily rejected the roadmap, accusing the quad of bias and in the process infuriating Boulos. The army said the proposal entailed the disbandment of the army, the cornerstone of its power base. Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, was in Port Sudan last week meeting the army leadership. “Without a ceasefire, the country will continue to fragment, with serious consequences for the entire region,” Kravik said. “Norway hopes in the coming weeks to bring together civilian society to Oslo to discuss how a civilian government can be prepared.” At the same time, Trump’s threat to label the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organisation, supported this week by the House foreign relations committee, may weaken the army since it is often accused of having extensive links with the movement. White House attention on the Sudan crisis will also have been spurred by renewed reports that the army may be willing to provide an extended port lease to Russia, as well as claims that it has denied UN authorities access to evaluate claims it has used chemical weapons. The UAE, which opposes the influence of Islamism in politics, says rooting out the Muslim Brotherhood must remain the key factor in the west’s approach to the region. Speaking at the Chatham House thinktank this week, Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE minister of state, said the solution to the conflict laid in returning Sudan to a broad-based civilian government. “We cannot see the political rehabilitation of either warring party,” she said. “Both the RSF and the Port Sudan Authority [her term for the army] have committed grave violations, disgraced themselves, and in the views of the international community neither has a legitimate claim to shape Sudan’s future.” On Thursday the UN’s human rights chief issued a stark warning about Sudan, saying he feared “a new wave of atrocities” amid a surge in fierce fighting in the Kordofan region. Volker Türk urged “all states with influence over the parties to take immediate action to halt the fighting, and stop the arms flows that are fuelling the conflict”.
The leader of an Israeli-backed militia in Gaza has been killed, dealing a major blow to Israel’s efforts to build up its own Palestinian proxies to confront Hamas. Yasser abu Shabab, a Bedouin tribal leader based in the Israeli-held zone of the devastated territory, is thought to have died from wounds sustained in a violent clash with powerful and well-armed local families, according to local media and sources in Gaza. Abu Shabab was the commander of the Popular Forces, the biggest and best-armed of several militia that emerged in Gaza during the later stages of the two-year conflict. All appear to have benefited from Israeli support as part of a strategy of arming proxies to degrade Hamas and control the population. The exact timing of Abu Shabab’s death is unknown but it appears to have been in the last 48 hours. The Popular Forces said in a statement that their leader died of a gunshot wound as he intervened in a family quarrel, and it dismissed as “misleading” reports that Hamas was behind his killing. Sources in Gaza and reports on social media and in Israel earlier suggested that Abu Shabab, who was in his 30s and had been expelled by his own clan, died in a clash after refusing to release a hostage taken by his men from a powerful and heavily armed local family. Relatives of the hostage were said to have mounted an attack on the Popular Forces base, which led to casualties on both sides. Abu Shabab was reportedly badly injured and died of his wounds in Gaza. A spokesperson for Hamas, which had called Abu Shabab a collaborator and promised to hunt him down, denied any involvement in the killing. In June, Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that Israel had armed anti-Hamas clans and factions in Gaza. There has been no official comment from his government on Abu Shabab’s death. Israel’s policy has drawn criticism from some experts who have said such groups can provide no real alternative to Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2007. Dr Michael Milshtein, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and expert on Hamas at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said: “The writing was on the wall. Whether he was killed by Hamas or in some clan infighting, it was obvious that it would end this way.” Several other anti-Hamas groups have emerged in areas of Gaza held by Israel. The Palestinian political analyst Dr Reham Owda said Abu Shabab’s death would fuel doubts among them about their ability to challenge Hamas. Hossam al-Astal, the leader of another newly formed militia operating in the area of Khan Younis, said in September that he and Abu Shabab offered “an alternative force to Hamas”. Astal’s whereabouts is unknown. Abu Shabab’s hundred or so fighters continued to operate from areas of Gaza controlled by Israeli forces after a US-backed ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was agreed in October. On 18 November, Abu Shabab’s group posted a video showing dozens of fighters receiving orders from his deputy to launch a security sweep to “clear Rafah of terror”, an apparent reference to Hamas fighters believed to be trapped in tunnels there. A week later, the Popular Forces claimed to have captured Hamas members. Israel’s internal and military intelligence services turned to individuals such as Abu Shabab when it became clear that their efforts to build an anti-Hamas coalition of community leaders and family elders would not succeed in the face of fierce Hamas repression of any threat among Palestinians in Gaza. Many of those recruited into the new factions had been engaged in systematic looting of aid convoys, leading to allegations that Israel was allowing some theft of humanitarian assistance to bolster its new allies. In June, Abu Shabab – a member of the Tarabin Bedouin tribe – told the Guardian his activities were “humanitarian”, adding that he did not work “directly” with the Israeli military. The Israeli strategy of backing militia factions such as the Popular Forces was one consequence of Netanyahu’s refusal to allow the Palestinian Authority, which exercises partial control over parts of the Israel-occupied West Bank, to administer Gaza in any way. Abu Shabab’s Popular Forces coordinated closely with Israeli forces around controversial aid distribution sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an opaque US- and Israel-backed private organisation that has now been shut down. Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan foresees Hamas disarming and the territory run by a transitional authority supported by a multinational stabilisation force. But progress has been slow, with Hamas so far refusing to disarm and no sign of agreement on the formation of the international force. The war in Gaza was triggered by a Hamas raid into Israel in 2023 that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and led to the abduction of 250. The ensuing Israeli offensive and strikes since the ceasefire have killed more than 70,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and left the territory in ruins.
When Vladimir Putin last set foot in India almost exactly four years ago, the world order looked materially different. At that visit – lasting just five hours due to the Covid pandemic – Putin and the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, discussed economic and military cooperation and reaffirmed their special relationship. Three months later, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine would turn him into a global pariah, isolating the Kremlin from the world and restricting Putin’s international travel. Since then, Donald Trump’s re-election has upended years of closely nurtured US-India relations with his inflammatory rhetoric and some of the world’s most punishing import tariffs, throwing Delhi into a tailspin. Against this turbulent geopolitical backdrop, analysts emphasised the significance of the Russian president travelling to India on Thursday to meet Modi, both as a symbol of the enduring relationship between the countries and as a message that neither would be cowed by US pressure. The summit comes at a critical juncture for both countries. Putin has arrived in Delhi after rejecting the latest US-proposed Ukraine peace plan, confident that recent advances by Russian forces on the battlefield have strengthened his hand. Petr Topychkanov, a Moscow-based senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said that for Russia, “the importance of this visit lies primarily in the fact that it is happening at all”. “It will signal that Russia is returning to something resembling normal international relations,” said Topychkanov. “Russia is no longer anxious about the risks of political isolation.” For India, there are even greater stakes at play. As Aparna Pande, the director of the India and south Asia initiative at the Hudson Institute thinktank, put it, Delhi is grappling with its most unfavourable geopolitical climate in years thanks to “a semi-isolationist America, a weaker Russia and a very powerful China”. In a notable sign of the tightrope India has to walk, on the eve of Putin’s arrival a joint opinion piece by the French ambassador, the German high commissioner and the UK high commissioner to India was published in the Times of India, titled “Russia doesn’t seem serious about peace”. It prompted a stinging response from India’s foreign ministry, which said it was “not an acceptable diplomatic practice to give public advice on India’s relations with a third country”. ‘China remains the greatest threat to India’ India’s relationship with Russia goes back to the cold war and has remained deeply entrenched, with Russia India’s biggest defence supplier. It is an alliance that was long tolerated by western governments, even after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, but Trump’s return to the White House has signalled a markedly different approach. Over the past three years, the US and Europe turned a blind eye as India became one of the largest buyers of cheap Russian oil, despite sanctions in the west. But after the US president’s peacemaking efforts in Ukraine failed earlier this year, Trump began to accuse India of bankrolling Russia’s invasion. He publicly put pressure on Delhi to halt its Russian oil purchases, which culminated in a punishing additional 25% punitive US tariff on Indian imports. In Delhi, which has pursued a multi-alignment foreign policy since independence and reacts poorly to any outside interference, the perceived attempts by Trump to meddle and coerce were met with outrage, resulting in the worst decline in US-India relations in years. In response, Pande said, India had returned to its default mode of “hedging” in its unorthodox alliances, “signalling to the US it has multiple options and waiting to see where everything will fall”. The last meeting between Putin and Modi was just three months ago, alongside the Chinese premier, Xi Jinping, where the three leaders were pictured holding hands and sharing jokes – optics that prompted fury from Trump. Yet India has other pressing priorities in its engagement with Russia, namely the vast superpower that sits along its febrile north and north-eastern border. “From the Indian side – for all the talk of Russia being a great and loyal friend – the real reason that relationship is important is geography,” said Pande. “China remains the greatest threat to India for the foreseeable future and since the Soviet Union, India has always relied on Russia as a continental balancer against China.” The increasingly close, “no-limits partnership” between Moscow and Beijing has rattled India, said Pande, and left it hoping to find a way to “prevent Russia from ever getting too close to China and ensure it can count on Moscow to put some pressure on the Chinese”. It has also prompted India to try to move away from its dependence on Russia, particularly on defence. For decades, about 70% of Indian defence purchases came from Russia but in the past four years this has reduced to less than 40%. While the sale of weapons and planes – in particular Russian S-400 air defence systems and the Sukhoi Su-57 fighter aircraft – will probably be a key component of Modi and Putin’s talks on Friday, Pande said: “India will try to strike a balance; keep purchasing enough Russian weapons to retain the alliance, but not be so dependent that if Russia suddenly cut off supplies under China’s pressure, India would be left hanging.” For all the bear hugs and golf buggy rides that Modi and Putin have publicly enjoyed together in recent years, “this is a relationship based on pure realpolitik”, she added. The question of oil Growing economic cooperation and bilateral trade between the two countries is also likely to be on the table at the summit. At an event on Tuesday with leading Russian economists, Putin emphasised Russia’s plan to take its cooperation with China and India “to a qualitatively new level”, flying in the face of western sanctions. The question of oil also looms large. While Modi has insisted that India would continue to buy Russian oil, newly imposed sanctions by the US and EU which threaten companies that buy from Russia have led to a notable slowdown in purchases by the Indian private sector. Meanwhile, in a move seen as an attempt to appease Trump, India has agreed to import more US oil and gas. In a briefing this week, Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, acknowledged “obstacles” in economic and energy cooperation between the two countries but said they would continue uninterrupted. Western sanctions would cause only “insignificant drops and decreases” in how much oil Russia exports to India, and only “for a very brief time”, said Peskov, adding that Moscow possessed the technology to circumvent sanctions in the long run. As Modi and Putin sit down, mention of Ukraine will probably be limited to India’s repeated calls for peace, said analysts, emphasising that the Indian prime minister was unlikely to be able to move the needle in the global push for a halt to the war. “Yes Modi can speak to both Putin and Zelenskyy, but aside from asking both countries to talk to each other, India doesn’t have the leverage to make a difference on either side,” said Pande.
The EU’s former foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has resigned from her role as head of the elite College of Europe after being indicted in a corruption investigation. In a statement sent to college staff on Thursday, Mogherini announced that “in line with the utmost rigour and fairness with which I always carried out my duties, today I decided to resign as rector of the College of Europe”. She also announced she would stand down as director of the EU Diplomatic Academy, the school for junior diplomats at the centre of an inquiry into alleged fraud and corruption. Prosecutors say they have “strong suspicions” that confidential information was shared with one of the candidates taking part in the tender to set up the academy. It was launched in 2023 at the College of Europe with a budget of nearly €1m. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the EU prosecuting agency that issued formal changes against Mogherini and two others this week, said the accusations involved “procurement fraud and corruption, conflict of interest and violation of professional secrecy”. It added: “All persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the competent Belgian courts of law.” Mogherini’s lawyer, Mariapaola Cherchi, told the Associated Press that her client was “transparent, clear and serene” during her 10-hour questioning, and she was confident Mogherini would be cleared. Mogherini served as the EU’s high representative for foreign policy from 2014-19 before being appointed rector of the College of Europe, the prestigious postgraduate school for EU studies with campuses in Bruges, Natolin and Tirana. She began a second five-year term in September. A press release about her reappointment lauded her role in establishing the EU Diplomatic Academy “to train a future generation of European-minded diplomats”. The case is examining whether the College of Europe had inside information that allowed it to secure the tender. The contract was awarded by the EU’s foreign service in 2021-22. Stefano Sannino, the top civil servant at the European External Action Service (EEAS) from 2021-24, has also been formally accused. Sannino went on to lead the European Commission’s department for the Middle East, north Africa and the Gulf. The commission said on Thursday he was “no longer active in his function”. “In light of the allegations brought forward by the EPPO … [he] has offered to take leave until the end of the year, when he will retire as planned,” the commission said, noting the presumption of innocence. Sannino, in a letter to staff announcing his departure, first reported by the Euractiv website, said he was “confident in the work of the magistrates and confident that everything will be clarified”. The investigation, which included raids on the EEAS headquarters in Brussels and on Mogherini’s home, is likely to be seized on by critics of EU policies at home and abroad. The US deputy secretary of state, Christopher Landau, retweeted an article about the case, noting that Mogherini was “the same person, incidentally, who characterised communist Cuba as a ‘one-party democracy’ and fostered European investment, tourism and trade that propped up the island’s repressive and stridently anti-American regime”. He was referring to the 2016 edition of the EEAS’s annual report on human rights and democracy, released during Mogherini’s tenure, which described Cuba as a “one-party democracy”, where elections took place at municipal, regional and national level. The report also noted the increased harassment and jailing of political opponents and restrictions on freedom of speech.