Read the daily news to learn English

picture of article

Middle East crisis live: Trump warns Iran to comply with ‘real agreement’ as ceasefire in doubt over Israeli attacks on Lebanon

Four Lebanese soldiers were killed in Israeli attacks yesterday, Lebanon’s army said in a statement. More than 200 people were killed in Israeli strikes on Lebanon yesterday, according to Lebanese authorities, with a further 1,100 wounded. Several world leaders and officials, including the UK foreign minister Yvette Cooper, have called for Lebanon to be included in the US-Iran ceasefire.

picture of article

France accuses Hungary of ‘betrayal of solidarity’ over leaked call with Russian foreign minister – Europe live

“Hungary has been a model for the Trump presidency for a while now,” the Guardian journalist Flora Garamvolgyi tells Helen Pidd after JD Vance’s visit to Budapest this week. “And US Republicans looked at Hungary for these past years as a model to follow.” “[Viktor] Orbán is currently on his fourth consecutive term. And the fact that he has been so successful and he had similar narrative, similar ideologies to US Republicans in terms of immigration, for example, I think they have found a link to connect with Orbán and they were studying his success.” But as polls suggest this election will be challenging for Orbán, will Hungarians decide his time is up? Listen to our Today in Focus podcast:

picture of article

Four people die in Channel small-boat sinking

Two men and two women have died after a small boat sank in the Channel between France and Britain, French local authorities have said. They died after being swept away by strong currents while trying to board a dinghy, according to Francois-Xavier Lauch, the prefect of Pas-de-Calais. The dinghy was described as a taxi-boat, which travels along stretches of the northern French and Belgian coasts, picking up migrants along the shore. At least 42 others were rescued in the incident off the coast of Boulogne, between Équihen-Plage and Hardelot-Plage. Lauch said of the four people who died: “They were already quite far into the sea. The currents, which can be dangerous here, swept them away. “This provisional toll – and I insist that it is provisional – states four deceased: two men, two women.” One person had developed hypothermia and another 37 people were being treated by emergency services. Thursday’s incident occurred the day after 102 people got into difficulty trying to cross the Channel and had to be rescued. In another recent incident, two people died trying to cross the Channel at the beginning of April. The use of taxi-boats by people smugglers is controversial as they move along the coast picking up people at different points rather than having one fixed launching point into the sea. There have been reports that some of the taxi-boats are starting their journey from Belgium and then moving along the French coast. Imran Hussain, the director of external affairs at the Refugee Council, said: “Our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the four people who have tragically died in the Channel attempting to reach safety in the UK. “People who have escaped devastating wars and brutal regimes in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan are being driven into small boats by desperation. A lack of safe routes to the UK has left people feeling they have no other choice to rebuild their lives: the government has even shut down family reunion for refugees, which overwhelmingly supported women and children.” Charlotte Khan, the head of advocacy and public affairs at Care4Calais said: “Another four lives have been needlessly lost to our deadly border. “As our government continues to focus on ineffective deterrents, tragedies continue to happen. These deaths are on their hands. They could end the deaths on our border overnight by introducing safe routes for refugees to claim asylum in the UK. That they won’t is a political choice which shames them.” Elsa Faucillon, a Communist party MP who is involved in the national assembly’s inquiryinto the Le Touquet agreements between the UK and France, said tributes would be paid in the assembly on Thursday to those who had died. She posted on X: “Favourable weather windows are multiplying and the deaths are piling up in the Channel … This must stop.” A UK government spokesperson said:“We are deeply saddened to hear about the deaths in French waters today. “Every death in the Channel is a tragedy and a stark reminder of the dangers posed by criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people for profit. We will continue working relentlessly with the French and our partners overseas to prevent these perilous journeys. “The French authorities are leading the response to this incident and we are supporting their investigation.” The UK and France are negotiating a fresh deal to stop small boats crossing the Channel, with an interim arrangement in place after they failed to renew an agreement that expired on 31 March. More than 5,000 migrants have crossed the Channel, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, to the UK so far this year. About 41,500 people made the crossing last year. .

picture of article

Who can claim victory if Iran ceasefire holds? An early winner is China

As the world struggles to make sense of what, if anything, was achieved by the ceasefire deal announced by the US and Iran on Tuesday, one major power that stands to win regardless is China. Beijing’s powerbrokers are being credited with pushing Iran towards agreeing to the ceasefire, bolstering its status as a regional mediator. In China’s tightly censored domestic media, articles basking in the glory of China being the grown-up in the room at a time of international crisis were allowed to circulate. Guancha, a nationalist online outlet, published a report on Wednesday that discussed articles in the New York Times and Associated Press in which China was credited in playing a pivotal role in the ceasefire deal between Iran and the US. The article in Guancha said: “The conclusion of this ceasefire could not be achieved without active mediation of China, Pakistan and other countries.” The US president, Donald Trump, told the Agence France-Presse news agency that he believed China had got Iran to agree to a ceasefire. This confirmed reports from Iranian and Pakistani officials that Beijing had played a crucial role in the 11th-hour negotiations in Islamabad. Yet some analysts are sceptical about how influential China could actually have been in the late-night discussions. The deal, as initially advertised by Tehran, is so advantageous to Iran that encouraging the regime to agree to it would have been like “pushing an open door”, according to one analyst. Nicholas Lyall, a senior researcher at Trends, a research and advisory firm in Abu Dhabi, said: “In terms of whether China had to do much pushing of Iran for it to agree to the temporary ceasefire, and whether Iran was swayed by this reported Chinese effort, it’s important to clarify what Iran has actually agreed to.” The 10 points on Iran’s ceasefire plan, which were initially touted by Trump as a “workable” basis for negotiation, were “maximalist and represent all of Iran’s pre-existing stated demands from previous weeks”, Lyall said. “This all means Iran has made no real concessions in agreeing to begin talks, and is very legitimately able to present it as a genuine political win to any audience. “Therefore, any Chinese involvement in the process of Iran agreeing to talks is highly likely not as influential as some might assume, as it was largely pushing on an open door given apparent US acquiescence to those Iranian demands.” Officially, China has not confirmed or denied reports that it played an active role in the Islamabad negotiations. At a press conference on Wednesday, the foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said only that China “had been actively working to promote de-escalation and an end to all hostilities”. Still, Beijing will be happy to be credited with brokering a fragile peace agreement that appeared to pull the conflict in Iran back from the brink of a major escalation. Before Trump’s second term in the White House upended global stability and fractured regional alliances, China was building up a reputation as a mediator in the Middle East, most notably by brokering the surprise rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023. In 2024, leaders from rival Palestinian factions signed a “Beijing declaration” after talks in China, in which they agreed to form a national unity government for Palestine at an unspecified point in the future. More recently, officials from China and Pakistan – the country that has emerged as the more pivotal mediator in this conflict – published a five-point plan aimed at bringing about a ceasefire and re-opening the strait of Hormuz. All of these plans “are geared to build a global image of Chinese responsibility and moderation as opposed to being geared to actually solve the conflicts they pertain to”, said Lyall. William Yang, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said: “There have been previous attempts where China claimed victory in some very easy cases. This time around, it’s quite different because I think China does sense the continuous disruption will have a more direct impact on its core interests.” He added: “Ultimately, if China is able to ensure that it uses its influence and leverage over Iran to really help to facilitate any form of ceasefire, it would see that being in its interest to do so,” but he said Beijing would be “cautious” about making public what kind of pressure was or was not exerted. China’s actual diplomatic sway in the region is limited, although it is growing. As the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, China is economically important to Tehran. But the two countries do not have a particularly deep diplomatic relationship. Song Bo, a fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, said Iran was “outside of the top 10” of countries that were important to Beijing. Analysts are even more sceptical of the idea that China might act as the guarantor of any ceasefire agreement in the Middle East. On Wednesday, the Iranian envoy Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli said in Beijing that he hoped that “big countries like China and Russia” would work together to help guarantee peace in the region. China and Russia did support Tehran by vetoing a UN security council resolution, proposed before the ceasefire, that aimed to force the re-opening of the strait of Hormuz. But actually committing resources to the conflict is a much bigger ask. Song said: “China doesn’t have a direct stake with any of the parties in the Middle East. Acting as a guarantor for a ceasefire would be an extremely high-cost diplomatic undertaking, and I don’t think China would commit to that easily. “It’s just not realistic. Even if China were to act as a guarantor, it lacks the diplomatic or military leverage to actually influence or control the parties involved in the conflict.” Lyall said China did not have the capacity to verify whether the ceasefire terms were being adhered to, and was unlikely to be able to impose any meaningful penalty on a party that broke those terms. The ceasefire deal is not just a public relations win for China. Although the country has large stockpiles of oil, the risk of a global recession and soaring fossil fuel prices nevertheless poses a threat for the Chinese economy, which is heavily dependent on exports. “If it is possible to manage this conflict, and through managing the conflict be able to push down some oil prices, then that is certainly still very important for China,” said Song. Additional research by Lillian Yang and Yu-chen Li

picture of article

Lebanon must be included in US-Iran ceasefire deal, Yvette Cooper to say

Lebanon must be included in the ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran, the British foreign secretary is to say, as a two-week pause in the conflict hangs in the balance. Addressing an event at the Mansion House in London, Yvette Cooper is expected to say there “must be no return to conflict” after the ceasefire announced by the US president, Donald Trump, late on Tuesday. Despite the announcement, Israel intensified its bombing campaign in Lebanon, with at least 254 people killed, prompting Iran to once again halt the passage of oil tankers through the crucial strait of Hormuz. Before her speech, Cooper told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon were “completely wrong”. “We want to see an end to hostilities in Lebanon. What Israel was doing yesterday with this escalation of strikes was completely wrong … this escalation is damaging, it’s wrong, it’s going the wrong direction. We want the ceasefire extended to cover Lebanon.” Cooper said the UK’s position on Lebanon has been raised with the US and directly with Israel. Any hope that Israel would immediately stop hitting targets in Lebanon appeared to be dashed on Wednesday when the US vice-president, JD Vance, said the country was not part of the ceasefire deal with Iran. Speaking in the Hungarian capital, Budapest, Vance said: “I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding. I think the Iranians thought that the ceasefire included Lebanon, and it just didn’t. We never made that promise, we never indicated that was going to be the case.” But in her speech at the Lady Mayor’s Easter Banquet on Thursday, Cooper will say Lebanon must be included in the ceasefire. She will say: “There is considerable work to do, and we support the negotiations: they must make progress; there must be no return to conflict; Lebanon must be included in the ceasefire; there must be no further threat from Iran to its neighbours; and crucially, the strait of Hormuz must be fully reopened. “More than 3,000 miles away from here – yet the deliberate blocking of this critical artery of the global economy is affecting mortgage rates, petrol and food prices, here at home. Every country on every continent has felt the effects. “That is why we have been working for a swift resolution of this conflict and to support the reopening of the strait of Hormuz.” Iran closed the crucial waterway as a thoroughfare in response to the US and Israel’s attacks that started in late February. Since then, global prices of fuel and fertiliser have risen sharply, which has put pressure on household budgets. In her address to City leaders, Cooper will stress the importance of ensuring the critical shipping route remains open. She will say: “Fertiliser for Africa, liquid natural gas for Asia, jet fuel for the world; the trading route for Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Oman, all hijacked by Iran so they can hold the global economy hostage. “No country can close these routes – it goes against the fundamental principles of the law of the sea.” She will add: “We know more than ever that freedom of navigation is the underpinning of global trade. It matters for every sea, ocean and strait. Every country has a stake in this. Every industry is affected by it. “We should start immediately to get international shipping moving again by supporting the International Maritime Organization’s proposals to move the ships trapped in the strait, and the 20,000 stranded seafarers – a humanitarian as well as an economic first step. And then the full and unconditional re-opening of the strait must be a central part not just of the current ceasefire but of the long-term future for the region.” Meanwhile, Keir Starmer has arrived in the United Arab Emirates on the second leg of his trip to Gulf countries. The UK prime minister is visiting allies in the region for talks on upholding the pause in fighting and what steps are needed to bring confidence to get shipping going again through the strait of Hormuz. He spoke to the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, in Jeddah and is expected to meet the UAE president, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

picture of article

Thursday briefing: ​What difference will the ceasefire in the Middle East make, and will it hold?

Good morning. On Tuesday, just an hour before the deadline imposed by Donald Trump for Iran to reopen navigation in the strait of Hormuz or face a wave of “civilisation-ending” strikes, a two-week pause in hostilities was announced. After weeks of US and Israeli attacks on Tehran, and Iranian retaliation across the region, the news prompted relief among world leaders. But unanswered questions are piling up. Israel’s assault on Lebanon continues, with Trump describing that conflict as a separate skirmish not included in the deal, despite Iran seeming to think otherwise. Overnight the US president has used social media to warn that “the ‘shootin’ starts,’ bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before” unless Tehran complies with “the real agreement”. For today’s newsletter I spoke to the Guardian’s senior international correspondent Peter Beaumont, who has reported widely from across the region, about the chances of the deal holding, how the US-Israeli campaign has shifted the balance of power, and what may come next. First, the headlines. Five big stories Middle East | The fate of the two-week ceasefire in the Iran conflict looked in peril as both sides gave divergent versions of what had been agreed. Iran halted the passage of oil tankers because of an alleged Israeli ceasefire breach. Middle East | Israel carried out its largest attack on Lebanon since its war with Hezbollah began, killing at least 254 people and wounding 837. Middle East | The UK has a “job” to help reopen the strait of Hormuz, Keir Starmer said on arriving in the Middle East, as Iranian reports said the key shipping route was closed again just hours after the supposed US-Iran ceasefire. Ukraine | The US has ignored compelling evidence that Russia has been helping Iran to target US bases in the Middle East because it misguidedly “trusts” Vladimir Putin, according to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Education | Many English universities are taking excessive financial risks with borrowing and expansion of student numbers, threatening not only their own survival but that of others in the sector, the thinktank Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) has warned. In depth: Trump has his ceasefire – now comes the hard part News of a ceasefire in the US-Israeli attacks on Iran sparked celebration on the streets of Tehran, where the government has also agreed to suspend strikes against neighbouring states. It also prompted a drop in oil prices and a jump in stocks. Both sides are likely to claim that their decision to engage militarily has been vindicated. However, whether anybody has really gained a long-term strategic advantage is unclear. “I think it’s one of the mistakes that people make,” Peter says. “They get bewitched by hi-tech systems that allow you to blow up things with relatively low risk. But ultimately, wars are fought on human capital as much as technological capital.” That is one of the reasons, he argues, why this looks less like a path to peace than a pause in hostilities – after a conflict that has left thousands dead, cost billions, and may not have significantly altered the balance of power in any meaningful long-term way. And that’s if it lasts. *** What has been agreed – if anything? If there is one phrase Peter returns to again and again, it is this: is it even really a deal? (Jonathan Yerushalmy has helpfully laid out what we know about Iran’s 10-point offer in this explainer.) Peter describes the agreement as “half-baked” – less a conventional ceasefire than a hurried pause. Normally, he says, a meaningful ceasefire comes with detail and verification, “because without verification, you don’t have trust”. “What we’ve got here is more like a set of principles from the Iranians that Trump has looked at and said, ‘Yeah, that works for me’, and then a lot of running around afterwards. And already you’re seeing a bit of buyer’s remorse.” The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said on Wednesday that the US would take Iran’s uranium if it didn’t hand it over – at odds with the version of the deal released in Farsi, in which Iran included the phrase “acceptance of enrichment” for its nuclear programme. That uncertainty matters because the next 48 hours may prove more important than that initial dramatic overnight announcement. The key question is whether this truce can survive contact with the unresolved issues that caused the crisis in the first place – Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions, freedom of navigation through Hormuz, and the wider regional conflict. “We’ve got no meaningful way to judge what the expectations are,” Peter says, “since different sides seem to have different interpretations – including the mediators.” *** What has shifted since the US and Israel launched their attack? Peter is sceptical that the war has meaningfully changed the underlying picture. Iran, he says, has clearly been badly hurt – “they’ve been mauled” – with serious damage to infrastructure and leadership. But on the core political questions, much looks familiar. Tehran’s public position on not wanting a nuclear weapon has not changed. Nor, fundamentally, has the dispute over enrichment. “We’re back to JCPOA territory,” Peter says – referring to the Iran nuclear deal that Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu long sought to undermine and Trump ripped up during his first term. One issue Trump will be watching closely is domestic opinion. “This is not like Afghanistan after 9/11 or Iraq in 2003, this is not a popular war in the US” Peter says. “We can all see how much it costs to fill up a car, and Trump knows – even if he tries to deny it – how badly this is hurting him in the polls.” The impact of the war can be tracked in real time: oil prices, pensions, fuel costs. The global system is signalling very clearly that it wants stability, not escalation. *** Who has been weakened most? Peter thinks both Washington and Israel may emerge looking weaker than they hoped. “It’s not clear to me what the American interest was in this,” he says. “What was Washington supposed to get out of it?” On the Israeli side, too, the outcomes look limited. There has been no regime change in Tehran. Iran’s nuclear stockpile remains part of the negotiation. And if the aim was to make Israel safer, Peter is unconvinced. “It looks to me like a massive bust,” he says. “You’ve got the same regime in Tehran – wounded and angrier – still there, presumably looking for an opportunity to retaliate with a degree of deniability.” That does not mean Iran has emerged unscathed. But Peter cautions against confusing military damage with strategic success. He compares some of the briefings from Washington to the “five o’clock follies” of Vietnam: impressive claims about what has been hit, with far less clarity about what has been achieved. “You can make a lot of damage,” he says, “but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve achieved your political objectives. We’ve seen this before – with Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel and Hamas. Groups can rearm quickly if they want to.” The UK has also been affected. As political correspondent Alexandra Topping explains here, the conflict has revealed some important – and sometimes painful – lessons about the UK’s geopolitical standing and military readiness. *** What are the biggest risks to the pause? The most immediate risk is that one of the parties – or their allies – trips it up. Peter points in particular to Lebanon, where heavy Israeli strikes on Wednesday underline how limited this pause may be. “Israel may go out of its way to try to provoke Iran as a spoiler,” he says. Trump, in other words, may now find himself trying to preserve a ceasefire that one of his closest allies never really wanted. As Peter put it in this analysis piece, having gambled on the war, Netanyahu has failed to secure the fall of the theocratic regime or its nuclear stockpile. It is unlikely Israel’s leader will feel the job has been done. That pattern has been seen elsewhere. The hostilities against Iran have, to some extent, taken the world’s eye off the situation in Gaza. This morning five humanitarian organisations including Save the Children issued a scorecard of the Gaza ceasefire six months after it was agreed – and they concluded it is “failing”, stating that: “Palestinians are continuing to suffer extreme deprivation, hunger, injury, and death due to the Israeli government’s continued attacks, movement restrictions, and aid obstructions.” Even if this truce holds, it would represent only a partial de-escalation of one aspect of the conflict. *** What comes next? Pakistan has played a prominent role as mediator – it has no desire for a destabilised Iran on its borders that may embolden insurgent groups such as the Balochistan separatists. But Peter stresses that it is not alone: Egypt and others have also been pushing hard to stop the conflict spreading further. “No one wanted this,” he says. “In the Gulf they want to go back to shipping oil and making money.” For some regional powers, a quick and easy campaign against Iran might have been tolerable if it had remained low-risk. It plainly has not. Instead, Trump and Netanyahu find themselves trying to manage an unstable, costly and diplomatically toxic situation that has horrified much of the world. In Peter’s bleak summation, their diplomatic capital has been “piled up and set on fire, and then covered in petrol, and then set on fire again”. This morning’s most important question is not whether a ceasefire has been announced – it has. The question is whether it can survive the realities it was designed to postpone. Right now, the answer remains profoundly uncertain. What else we’ve been reading If, like me, you have always been suspicious about eating fish, Arwa Mahdawi has an entertaining piece on the push to tackle the US’s woefully low seafood consumption. Patrick I can never get enough nostalgia for my ZX Spectrum, but even if you didn’t have one, Daz Lawrence has entertainingly played and reviewed many horror-movie themed games that were available for the 80s home computer. Martin In an increasingly complacent world about the dangers of nuclear weapons, Zoe Williams has an excellent interview with Lib Dem peer and anti-nuclear-arms campaigner Sue Miller. Patrick Mia Clarke has a wistful look back at the early 2000s music scene based around Brighton featuring artists like Sea Power, the Pipettes and Bat For Lashes. Martin Here is a very entertaining interview with comedian Jack Whitehall, which took place in the wake of his much-publicised stag do. Patrick Sport Football | Désiré Doué and Khvicha Kvaratskhelia scored as PSG dominated a defensive Liverpool side who will be relieved the 2-0 margin of victory was not bigger. Horse racing | A run down of the top contenders to win in this Saturday’s Grand National at Aintree. Football | Unai Emery has warned his Aston Villa side to respect Bologna, and the Europa League itself, if they are to continue their progress in the competition with victory over their Italian opponents. And in The Knowledge: which team has gone furthest in Europe while being relegated in the same season? The front pages “Fragile ceasefire at risk as Israel bombards Lebanon” says the Guardian. Likewise the Financial Times’ angle is “Israeli hit on Lebanon threatens truce”. The Times runs with “Airstrikes risk blowing fragile ceasefire apart” and the Mirror has “And still it goes on”. The Mail lists everything it thinks is wrong with the Trump-Tehran ceasefire, summarising it as “A bizarre kind of victory”. The i paper is informative on the home front: “UK minehunter drones to protect oil in Hormuz – but fuel bills set to stay high”. The Metro will have its fun: “Oil over bar the shouting”. “Putin mocks Starmer in Channel” – not a Telegram channel but the waterway, where a Russian warship escorted a tanker against objections (that one’s in the Telegraph). The Express visits France where people are pictured clustered on a beach in life preservers – the headline is “Destination ‘El Dorado’ UK”. Today in Focus JD Vance’s endorsement of Orbán Flora Garamvolgyi on JD Vance’s visit to Hungary in the run-up to the country’s elections on Sunday Cartoon of the day | Rebecca Hendin The Upside A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad The sun is out and the natural world has burst into life once again. Spring is a key time for pollinators – and they need your help. Bumblebees and honeybees often dominate the attention on this topic, but there are more than 240 bee species in the UK that are buzzing around. Emma Beddington has written about how we can all do more to protect these crucial insects in her latest story for the Save our species series. Be sure to catch up on the others, too: swifts, bats, toads, hedgehogs and butterflies all need our support. 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. Martin Belam’s Thursday news quiz Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply

picture of article

‘I had poked the bear right in the eye’: my fight to renounce my Russian citizenship

One morning in May 2025, I walked briskly down Bayswater Road along the northern edge of London’s Kensington Gardens until I reached the gates of the Russian embassy. Its formidable outer wall, already topped with razor wire, now had the additional protection of a crowd control barrier. But there was no crowd, just a lone man feebly protesting from the other side of the road. In the early days of the war, the embassy was besieged by angry protesters. Back then, you couldn’t walk down a British street without spotting the blue and yellow of the Ukrainian flag. That time was long gone. Feeling uneasy, I was ushered inside by a guard who patted me down and checked the contents of my backpack before pointing the way inside. I knew this routine from my previous visits. Even the guard – a friendly Nepali man who knew about three words of Russian – hadn’t changed in years. I used to come here to renew my Russian passport and, on one noteworthy occasion, in March 2000, to vote in the Russian presidential elections. This time, I had an altogether different purpose: I was here to renounce my Russian citizenship. I was born in 1980 to parents of Ukrainian descent, and grew up on the island of Sakhalin, in Russia’s far east. Anton Chekhov, who visited Sakhalin nearly a century earlier, described it as a “gloomy little world” with its forbidding cliffs overlooking the vast sea, the roar of the breaking waves and the dark skies that induced “oppressive thoughts and drunkenness” among the few inhabitants of what was then a remote penal colony of the Russian empire. The Sakhalin of my youth would have been recognisable to Chekhov: still forbidding and gloomy, and, like much of the Russian provincial rust belt, crumbling. Dilapidated Soviet-era apartment blocks mingled with ramshackle Japanese buildings, recalling the checkered history of occupation and re-occupation in this contested corner of the Russo-Asian borderlands. When I reached 15, I secured a place on a US-funded exchange programme that took me to east Texas. Within weeks I had bought myself a pair of cowboy boots, and soon I was dropping “y’alls” right and left while “fixing” to do this and that. Small-town east Texas was a world away from small-town Sakhalin, but in one way it was the same: both felt like the ends of the earth. The noble idea behind this exchange programme was to bring young Russians to live with American host families for a year, so they could learn something about the ways of freedom and democracy and – so the theory went – steer Russia in a more promising direction. Another of the early participants in the programme was Margarita Simonyan, who would go on to become editor-in-chief of Russia Today. But, instead of returning to Russia (unlike Simonyan, who became one of Vladimir Putin’s most capable propagandists), after my year in Texas, I hopped from place to place, exploring different cultures, learning multiple languages, and feeling myself, quite comfortably, a piece of post-Soviet flotsam carried by the great currents of time. I wasn’t exactly sure who I was. But in a certain sense, I remained a Russian, tied to that vast homeland of mine, which I barely knew, not just by familial bonds but legally, through my passport. In the early 2000s, I moved to the UK to study international relations at the London School of Economics (LSE). This was a period of optimism about globalisation, which seemed to herald more trade, more travel, more transnational ties. The LSE was a bastion of this worldview and I felt at home among all the would-be bankers, would-be McKinsey consultants, and would-be diplomats who surrounded me. What did it even mean to be a Russian in the increasingly borderless world, I sometimes wondered. Unlike many Russians – oligarchs, dissidents and just ordinary people who made London their home – I didn’t stay. I couldn’t afford it, if truth be told. I was also restless. And so, I soon exchanged my crammed LSE accommodation for the rolling steppes and vast deserts of Mongolia. I spent many a night in quiet conversations with Mongolian herdsmen, sharing rock-hard aaruul (sun-dried curd) and a bowl of airag (fermented mare’s milk) – the nomad’s meagre diet. I, too, was recognisably a nomad. But although I wore a traditional deel (a flowing Mongolian garment), and even spoke Mongolian with fluency, I certainly did not become a Mongolian. To these wonderful people, I was still a gadaad hun (a “foreigner” or, literally, an “outsider”). We all know the feeling of being an “outsider” but, I suppose, for most people, there is still that one place they genuinely belong, where they are on the “inside.” I struggled to find that place. I became a tumbleweed, blown about here and there, without ever planting roots. I was living in China – teaching at the University of Nottingham’s China campus – when mass protests erupted in Moscow following the parliamentary elections of December 2011, widely regarded as fraudulent. Demonstrations continued for months. The Kremlin cracked down, arresting hundreds of protesters, including former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov and the up-and-coming opposition leader Alexei Navalny. The brutal denouement became a turning point for the regime. Fearing a popular uprising, Putin tightened screws on dissent. Russia was rapidly sliding towards tyranny. I took some interest in these developments, but I was a young academic, not an opposition activist. I didn’t even vote in any of the fraudulent elections: the nearest Russian consulate was too far away, and I had other interests. Still, Russia was a fixture in my universe, and I identified myself to curious Chinese taxi drivers simply as an “eluosiren” (a Russian). “Pujing hen hao!” (Putin is very good!) was the usual retort. As a rule, I did not argue. * * * I walked up the stairs and entered the embassy hallway. A heavy-set man in an ill-fitting suit greeted me unsmilingly at the desk. I was tense. The Kremlin is known for brutality towards those it regards as its enemies. Several activists, former intelligence officers and businessmen who found refuge in the UK have been poisoned or died under suspicious circumstances. I took comfort in my insignificance. “Renouncing your citizenship?” the embassy official asked, adding, sardonically: “Ochen zhal” (what a pity). I mentally rolled my eyes. I went to the booth and handed over a pile of documents. These had been very difficult to obtain. The Russians do not make it easy to renounce one’s citizenship. I was so desperate at times that I considered simply setting my passport on fire and tossing it over the brick wall of the Russian embassy: here, take it, you sons of bitches. But in such moments of anger, I would recall Friedrich Nietzsche’s apt description of the state as “the coldest of all cold monsters”. Deaf to outbursts of emotion, the state deals in procedure and paperwork. It sets the rules of the game. Flouting these rules would have gotten me nowhere. So I pursued the legal route. The correct procedure required collecting multiple spravkas – official notes from this or that government department proving that you have paid your taxes, that you have no unspent criminal convictions, and that you no longer live in Russia. The easiest way to obtain these spravkas is to travel to Russia, but this was not an option for me: I feared arrest. In Russia, it doesn’t take that much to be imprisoned for your political views: it’s enough, for instance, to call the war in Ukraine a “war”, or to criticise Russian brutalities. This is classed as “discrediting the armed forces” and could lead to 15 years in prison. Donating funds to Ukraine – which many Russians, including me, have done – is “treason” under Russian law and could lead to 25 years in prison. My sins went further. I had repeatedly criticised the regime in the press. As an academic, I had lent my expertise to the British and US foreign and defence policy communities, in effect participating in the effort to defeat Russia. In June 2023, I even testified against Russia at the UN security council, accusing the country of my birth of conducting a “war of aggression,” and of “atrocities, including torture, rape and killing”. There was nothing radical about these claims, of course. I was merely calling a spade a spade. By my own back-of-the-envelope calculation – if Putin’s absurd laws are to be taken seriously – I have clocked up a couple of decades or more of forced labour in some remote colony in Russia’s arctic North. Still, I was a scholar, not a dissident. I never felt like becoming a martyr. The last time I participated in anti-regime activity in person was in August 2019, when I marched through Moscow in what was called an “unsanctioned demonstration”. Thousands of Russians went “for a walk” to demonstrate their anger with another fraudulent election. The riot police – called “cosmonauts” for their black helmets and visors – were on hand to beat and arrest us. I escaped by darting into a sidestreet. No, I wasn’t a hero. Aged 39 at the time, I had no desire for a close encounter with the riot police. I had family back in the UK. It wasn’t my revolution. I admired dissidents like Navalny who dared the authorities to put him behind bars, or my fellow Anglo-Russian Vladimir Kara-Murza, who bounced back with ever greater vigour from repeated poisoning attempts. I had admired Nemtsov, who was killed in full view of the Kremlin. But I wondered whether it was worth the trouble. For whom? For what? “For beautiful Russia of the future,” they would say. But how long would the wait be? “We will let you know in six months,” the embassy receptionist told me. The documents would go to Moscow for approval. I nodded. I was asked to pay a fee of £150, in cash. The Russian embassy accepts only cash. I always believed that this was because they need cash to pay their spies. I paid and walked out in haste. “Criminals!” shouted the solitary protester from the other side of the street, looking directly at me. “At least Judas hanged himself!” “Is he talking about me?” I pondered. Who have I betrayed, exactly? * * * On 24 February 2022, I had woken up in a cold sweat and grabbed my iPhone. My heart sank. Over the ensuing weeks, news stories supplied a steady stream of images I never thought I would see: cities in ruins, dead civilians, desperate refugees pleading for help, blood everywhere. In the run-up to Russia’s full-scale invasion, I had taken the easy route: refraining from making public comments for fear of undermining my reputation by making the wrong call. But the truth is that I had not seen it coming. I knew Putin was more than capable of committing hideous crimes, of course, but it takes a leap to go from dabbling in occasional murder to raising murder to the level of national policy. I misjudged how deeply he craved to be recognised as the tsar who restored the Great Empire, a reincarnation of Peter the Great. And that was a serious case of myopia for a historian who was then writing a fat book on how the Soviet leaders – ever insecure – had craved western recognition of their greatness. This obsession with greatness at any cost was not just a trait peculiar to Putin. I knew that it was widely shared. Yes, some Russians sacrificed themselves for their opposition to the imperial narrative. But the vast majority were either indifferent or, often, quite attuned to Putin’s ideas. Suffering under tyrannical rule, they were not averse to imposing tyranny on others. Their unreformed chauvinism and mindless imperialism was reason enough for me to despise Russia as a political project. By the time of the full-scale invasion, I was tired of Russia claiming me as its own, and of my claiming to be a part of a political community that seemed at once so intuitively mine and yet so incredibly alien. Added to my secret shame at having misjudged Putin, I felt a real sense of guilt. Here I was, enjoying my life as an academic, while in Ukraine, people were being tortured, raped and killed by the Russian invaders. Had I failed to do everything that I could have to avert this? Even more troubling: was I guilty by association? After all, there it was in my desk: the red passport with a double-headed eagle. These atrocities were being committed in my name. On the day of the invasion, still reeling, I tweeted: “I feel like I woke up in a puddle of s**t and vomit, not quite sure what happened last night, but telling stern, reproachful observers all around: it’s not me, it’s not mine!” Three days later, I posted in Russian (which I had almost never done before): “I accept my share of the collective responsibility for the bloodbath unleashed by Putin’s regime.” Like Rodion Raskolnikov, the main character of Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment, I had to kiss the ground and publicly accept responsibility. But I would be lying if I said that this statement was final and irrevocable acceptance of guilt. Once I recovered from the initial shock of the invasion, doubts began to creep in. Unlike Raskolnikov, I did not actually murder anyone. And wasn’t the whole idea of collective responsibility fundamentally illiberal, something that harked back to Europe’s dark experience with communism and fascism? These questions of identity and responsibility were not merely philosophical. Around that time, I had to open a bank account in Italy. Everything went normally until the moment a bank official called me on my mobile. “Signore Radchenko?” she said. “Sì?” “You mentioned in your application that you were born in the Soviet Union.” “Sì?” “Ma quale parte (but which part)?” I nearly burst out laughing. Yet it wasn’t a laughing matter. Russian citizens were being subjected to sanctions across Europe – even those who were regime opponents, those who had fled Russia because they risked arrest and imprisonment back home. It was thus that theoretical discussions about collective responsibility unexpectedly acquired a very practical dimension. * * * Wrestling with myself over these questions, I turned to philosophy. In 1946 German thinker Karl Jaspers published a famous polemic titled Die Schuldfrage (usually translated as On the Question of German Guilt). Jaspers, who had been dismissed from his university post in 1937 for being insufficiently enthusiastic about national socialism, and for having a Jewish wife, undertook to examine Germany’s – and, by extension, his own – responsibility for the horrors of the Third Reich. In the book, he distinguished between different types of guilt. First was the straightforward criminal guilt that concerned only those who actively committed wartime atrocities. Then, there was political guilt, which, he wrote, “results in my having to bear the consequences of the deeds of the state whose power governs me and under whose order I live”. Added to this was moral guilt – supporting the regime through one’s actions or inaction. Finally, Jaspers also wrote about metaphysical guilt: the idea, which at some level I shared, that I was responsible for the death of innocent people because I had not risked my life to save them. Jaspers fudged the question by failing to distinguish between guilt and responsibility the way Hannah Arendt did in her famous 1968 essay on collective responsibility. “Where all are guilty, no one is,” she argued. And yet she, too, found that you could be held responsible for acts you did not commit simply by virtue of belonging to a political community. Rejecting this responsibility was thus hypocritical on my part. After all, I did not grow up on a desert island, even if Sakhalin at times felt that way. I took the state for granted and availed myself of its benefits like any other citizen. I could not evade this responsibility. Or could I? Unlike all but a tiny fraction of Russians, I had viable options. In 2020, after living and working in Britain for many years, I had acquired British nationality. I had settled in Wales with my Mongolian wife and my increasingly British children and became British in habits and outlook: complaining about the miserable weather and appalling public services, but in a loving sort of way. Having long before given up on voting in the Russian elections, I meticulously voted in the British ones. I drew the line at trying to understand cricket. Even after acquiring British citizenship, I didn’t think too much about giving up my Russian passport. In his 2019 book Identity, Francis Fukuyama lashed out against the “questionable practice” of dual citizenship for its propensity to “engender potentially conflicting allegiances”. I read the book when it first appeared and underlined this passage with which I vehemently disagreed. I had always thought that having many passports was not just a convenience but also a political statement in support of an interconnected world. As a vaguely elitist intellectual with a global outlook, I resented the very idea of being pigeonholed. In my hubris, I neglected to properly consider the following warning from Fukuyama: “If the two countries of which one is a citizen go to war with each other, one’s loyalties are automatically in question.” In the world we live in today, a war between Russia and the west is no longer an unthinkable scenario. Where would my loyalties be if a war were to break out? I was born in the Soviet Union and inherited my Russian citizenship by default, aged 11. It was bestowed on me from above, regardless of what I thought or did not think. By contrast, I pledged my allegiance to the British Crown as a 40-year-old. My home was in these isles, and, more broadly, in the west. And, yes, if I ever had to fight to protect my adopted homeland against the Russians, I would do my duty just like any other British citizen must. This was the reality. And so, just a few months after the Russian invasion, I made the painful decision to come off the fence. It required years of painstaking work. I worked through proxies in Russia to collect all the necessary spravkas. Some of them would expire before they reached me, and I’d have to start anew, frustrated but determined. I kept my friends apprised of my plans. Many thought it was all rather tragic and offered their condolences, not understanding that I regarded renouncing my Russian passport as a liberation, a bit like ridding oneself of a toxic relationship or having surgery to remove kidney stones. * * * Eventually, the time came to tell my parents. They reproached me for my decision. At times, it seemed they half-regretted that moment in 1995 when I first left Sakhalin to explore the world. Did they, too, in their still-Soviet worldview, see this as treason of a deeper kind? The lone protester’s voice rang in my ears: “At least Judas hanged himself.” When my parents were growing up, the Soviet Union was still recovering from the brutalities of the second world war. Their parents were war veterans. They were brought up to take pride in the achievements of their motherland, in its greatness that was, supposedly, the envy of the west, which tirelessly schemed against it. They were great Soviet patriots and since the Soviet identity was but a hollow shell that masked associations of a deeper kind, they were also Russian patriots. In their eyes, Russia could do no wrong or, if it did, it wasn’t any worse than what anyone else was doing. I inherited some of that outlook through my early upbringing: all that marching up and down the street under the red flags, all the war songs. Here we were defeating the Germans, there beating the Japanese. My primary school favourite was a song that went, in part: “My motherland is large / It has many forests, fields, and rivers / I don’t know any other country / Where one breathes so freely.” Forty years later, they are still singing these songs. Do we owe something to political communities that nurture us? The Soviets thought so, and imposed punishing exit fees on would-be émigrés. They also stripped émigrés of their citizenship, a humiliating blow inflicted on Soviet dissidents. Putin’s regime doesn’t do that to you. Rather, it sees citizenship as a form of control. It even gives out Russian passports to (ideally Russian-speaking) foreign citizens in occupied territories such as Crimea and Abkhazia. Russian citizenship is what formally makes you a member of Putin’s Russkiy mir (the Russian world), and potentially a tool of the Kremlin’s subversion and influence operations in Russia’s immediate neighbourhood. The underlying, if not quite articulated, idea behind Putin’s policy is that Russians remain Russians even if they have settled abroad, even if they have acquired other citizenships, and even if they hold dissenting views on the Kremlin’s policies. There is an implicit expectation of loyalty, if not to the current government, then at the very least to the idea of Russianness. You cannot escape who you are, so goes the logic, and here’s your passport to prove it. While I was appalled by this logic, I also had to admit that it made sense. That was why I felt that giving up my citizenship was the right thing to do. I knew that no matter what I did, anyone I met might still think of me as Russian – whether because they concluded that my name definitely proved so, or because they detected a tinge of an accent in my speech. That was fine. But not the Russian government. They could not call me Russian and that was victory enough for me. My parents worried that, after renouncing my passport, I’d never be able to travel to Russia again, even for their funerals. “You would not even be able to put flowers on my grave,” my mother told me with a sigh. I tried to convince her otherwise. Things would eventually improve, I said. But I knew that they wouldn’t. With or without a Russian passport, I just could not go back. It is a strange feeling, which I probably share with any number of refugees from brutal dictatorships. What does it do to people when they are abruptly cut off from their roots? They can perhaps continue dreaming of a future return to their motherland. Many Russian exiles in Europe appeared to think in these terms. I didn’t. Maybe this was because, unlike these Russian exiles, I acquired genuine competing identities. I did not depend on Russia for my sense of who I was. It was a large country, just like that song claimed. But the world was much larger … So, I persisted in my effort to renounce my Russian passport, and on 7 May 2025, I handed the entire package of documents over to the Russian embassy. The Russian Foreign Ministry has the responsibility for accepting or denying citizenship renunciation requests. My documents were forwarded to Moscow. I was left to wait. I expected a decision by November at the latest. Then, in October 2025, for the first time since the war began, I went to Ukraine. It was an emotional moment. I felt like Luke Skywalker descending into that dark cave in The Empire Strikes Back, to face his own fears. Of what, exactly? I wasn’t sure. But it required a certain effort, a rethinking of who I was, of who I wanted to be. Earlier that autumn, I had made the decision to write a global history of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is a multi-year project that entails interviewing hundreds of policymakers in Ukraine, Europe, the United States, and the global south. I had spent the summer diligently studying Ukrainian and after a few months, I could speak it passably. And so, I went. On the unseasonably cold evening of 3 October, after tea and a chat with colleagues at the Kyiv School of Economics, I took the metro to the Maidan Square, and stood for a long time in silence next to the makeshift memorial to Ukrainian soldiers killed in this war: thousands of fading pictures lost amid the fluttering blue-and-yellow of Ukrainian flags. My phone buzzed. There was an email from the consular section of the Russian embassy in London. “Sergey Sergeyevich,” it began tersely, using my patronymic to highlight the seriousness of the matter. “In connection with your request to renounce Russian citizenship … we inform you that your request has been satisfied.” I lingered in the Maidan for a bit longer, listening to the flapping blue-and-yellow flags. * * * There was one more step to take. The Russian embassy wanted me to hand over my current, and all of my expired Russian passports, in exchange for an official spravka that my citizenship has been cancelled. On 15 October, I brought a thick stack of Russian passports to the embassy. While waiting my turn, I flipped through them. The one I liked most was my very first passport. It was different from the rest. It did not have the Russian double-headed eagle but instead the Soviet coat of arms (despite being issued in 1995 – which says a lot about my home town’s disconnection from reality). Looking at me from the front page of that passport is a 15-year-old kid, with a funny hairdo. “Well,” I said to him. “You didn’t see this coming, did you?” He stared back with the solemn gaze of Soviet youth. I picked up my very last Russian passport. I hadn’t used it in a while. Here I was, sporting a beard. While waiting my turn at the booth, I took out a pen and wrote a parting message across the first page: “Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!” This last prank did not go down well. The official in charge – who, it seemed, had never read Douglas Adams – insisted that I reapply for a new Russian passport before renouncing my citizenship. I told her I had no intention of doing that. “Well,” she said. “Then you are in the grey zone.” A few minutes later, I was walking down Bayswater Road, half seething, half laughing. “Yamar mangar yum be!,” my wife told me, using the Mongolian word for “idiotic.” “Come on,” I told her on the phone. “It was a joke.” But I recognised that I had gone overboard. I had worked for years to renounce my citizenship, only to sabotage the whole process at the last moment. And why? Because I wanted to poke the bear in the eye? I could see my wife’s point, and yet. I had poked the bear. Right in the eye. And I treasured this small act of provocation against that coldest of all cold monsters. What ensued were several months of correspondence. The embassy at first refused to answer my inquiries. I wrote a scrupulously legalistic complaint to the Foreign Ministry in Moscow, not expecting a reply. But the trick worked. Finally, in January 2026, I was summoned back to the embassy. On 28 January, I arrived at the entrance once again. The old Nepali guard patted me down and cursorily peeked into my backpack. “You know, I would really like to climb Everest,” I told him. “Qomolangma,” he corrected me sternly, using the Tibetan name for the world’s highest peak. “Qomolangma,” I conceded meekly. “Well,” he said with measured self-respect, “I also thought about doing it. But there is a huge gully there, which you must cross over a very, very narrow bridge. I thought I’d fall to my death.” I went inside and sat down by the Russian tricolour, waiting my turn. My eyes paused on a book on the nearby table: it turned out to be a memoir by Maria Butina, the spy arrested in the US and deported to Russia in 2019. I flipped through the pages. A phrase jumped out at me: “No matter where our guys are, whatever happens to them, you can never break the strong, invisible bond that they have to the motherland.” Jesus, I thought. What a nauseating pile of garbage. I threw the book aside. After a while I was called to the window. I was handed a piece of paper. “Spravka,” it read at the top. “On the cessation of Russian citizenship.” I skimmed the text. It had a stamp and a signature of a senior embassy official. “Thank you,” I said. “Do svidaniya” (see you again). Then I caught myself thinking: I am not seeing you again. For Christ’s sake, I am never – ever – seeing you again. I dashed out of the building and waved goodbye to the Nepali guard. “Qomolangma!” I shouted. I had crossed the death gully, and here I was, as yet unscathed. I stood on the street taking in the bustle of London’s busy day. The sun had come out from behind the clouds. I still had to learn who I was. But at least I knew who I wasn’t. Discover a selection of the Guardian’s finest longform writing, in one beautifully illustrated magazine. In this issue, you’ll find stories about how private equity is plundering the world and what it’s like growing up in a family of Nazis. Plus: why do we think the perfect buggy will make us better parents? Order your copy here, delivery charges may apply • Listen to our podcasts here and sign up to the long read weekly email here.

picture of article

Trump vents frustration with Nato – as it happened

This blog has now closed, but we are continuing our coverage of the ongoing situation in the Middle East – and more information on the US-Iran eleventh-hour ceasefire – here. Thanks for following along.