Pro-Palestinian students and Republican supporters of Israel don’t seem to have much in common; they mostly disagree.
However, they do seem to agree on one thing: “Fuck Joe Biden”.
In the run-up to the last presidential election, Joe Biden promised to “transform the nation’s divisions into unity and bring us together”. In many ways, the US is more divided than ever – not least in light of Israel’s bloody invasion of Gaza.
On many American campuses, pro-Palestinian demonstrators and activists have been protesting for weeks against US and American institutional support for what they describe as Israel’s genocide of Palestinians – these protests have occasionally been met with opposition and counter-protests from Israel supporters – often from the Republican side.
On Wednesday, however, Israel supporters and pro-Palestinian protesters at the University of Alabama could agree on at least one thing: “Fuck Joe Biden!”
A video clip widely circulated on social media shows both sides loudly demonstrating their displeasure with the sitting president, and some wonder if this is what Biden had in mind when he talked about “uniting” the country.
“Biden may overtake Bush to become one of the most hated presidents in modern history, and that is so damn fitting for a man who desperately wanted to be president for 30 years and finally got it when the light went out in his head”, comments one user.
Others say that Biden seems willing to commit political suicide for the sake of Israel and Netanyahu, and that it is an achievement to be so hated in two such politically different camps.
“This is his greatest accomplishment as president“, says Warren Wilhelm.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
A jury in New York has found that French banking giant BNP Paribas, through its operations in Sudan, helped support Omar al-Bashir’s regime and is therefore liable for the abuses that took place under his rule.
Three Sudanese victims have been awarded a total of 20.75 million dollars in damages.
The eight-member jury sided on Friday with the three plaintiffs – two men and one woman, all originally from Sudan but now American citizens. They had testified about horrific events under al-Bashir’s rule, where they were subjected to torture, burns, stabbings and sexual abuse by Sudanese soldiers and pro-government militias.
— I have no relatives left, Entesar Osman Kasher told the court in Manhattan.
The trial focused on whether BNP Paribas’ financial services constituted a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm suffered by victims of ethnic cleansing and mass violence.
Provided credit guarantees to the regime
The French bank, which operated in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009, provided credit guarantees that enabled Sudan to fulfill import and export commitments.
The plaintiffs argued that these guarantees allowed the regime to continue exporting cotton, oil and other commodities, which gave the country billions of dollars that helped finance the atrocities.
Bobby DiCello, who represented the plaintiffs, called the verdict “a victory for justice and accountability”.
— The jury recognized that financial institutions cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions, he said.
A spokesperson for BNP Paribas told news agency AFP that the verdict is “clearly wrong and there are very strong grounds to appeal the verdict”. The defense argued that the bank’s operations were legal in Europe and that there was no connection between the bank’s actions and what happened to the plaintiffs.
Previous penalty
BNP Paribas had in 2014 agreed to plead guilty and pay a penalty of 8.97 billion dollars for transferring billions of dollars for Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities that were subject to economic sanctions.
The US government recognized the Sudan conflict as genocide in 2004. The war claimed approximately 300,000 lives between 2002 and 2008 and displaced 2.5 million people, according to the UN.
Al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades, was deposed in 2019 and is wanted by the International Criminal Court on genocide charges.
Donald Trump has, according to multiple sources, urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to agree to Russia’s demands to end the war in Ukraine. A stormy meeting at the White House on Friday was reportedly marked by raised voices, heated arguments, and Trump’s repeated echoing of Putin’s positions.
During the meeting, Trump allegedly warned Zelensky that Putin had threatened to “destroy Ukraine” if the country does not accept the terms, reports Financial Times.
Sources with insight say the meeting between the parties devolved several times into “shouting matches”, where Donald Trump used profanities and threw frontline maps across the room.
Trump reportedly insisted that Zelensky must hand over the entire Donbass region to Moscow, and repeated arguments that Putin had made in a phone call the day before. At the same time, he later supported freezing the current frontlines, reflecting his shifting stance on the issue.
Zelensky and his delegation had hoped to convince Trump to deliver Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, but the US president refused.
If the reports are accurate, the meeting can be compared to the contentious meeting in February, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for lack of gratitude toward the United States.
The meeting between Zelensky and Trump in February earlier this year ended in open quarreling. Facsimile: Fox4
Zelensky’s position unchanged
European officials report that Trump repeatedly echoed Putin’s arguments word for word on several occasions, even when they contradicted his own previous statements about Russia’s weaknesses.
One official said Trump called the conflict a “special operation, not even a war” and warned Zelenskyy that Ukraine risked destruction.
Trump also expressed that Russia’s economy “is doing well”, which contrasts with his previous public statements that Putin’s economy is near collapse.
Zelensky commented to journalists: —Trump wants a quick victory – an end to the war – and that would be a victory for all reasonable people. Putin, however, wants the total occupation of Ukraine.
After the meeting, Zelensky stated that he had made clear to Trump that Ukraine’s position remains unchanged. Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he was convinced the conflict could be ended, adding that Putin “going to take something, he’s won certain property”.
While peace negotiations between the parties are marked by disagreement and stubbornness, fighting continues with undiminished intensity (archive image June 2025). Photo: screenshot/Youtube/@CNN
Donbass in exchange for other regions
Putin has proposed in talks with Trump that Ukraine hand over all of Donbass in exchange for smaller areas in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. However, Zelenskyy stated that there is still no clarity about exactly what Russia is willing to give up in these regions.
Ukrainian officials warn that giving up the remaining Donbass would give Moscow territory that it only partially controls, since the war began over three years ago.
Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of Ukraine’s foreign affairs committee, says: – To give the Donbas to Russia without a fight is unacceptable for Ukrainian society, and Putin knows that. It’s not about getting more territory for Russia; it’s about how to destroy us from within.
Trump’s repetition of Putin’s rhetoric dampened hopes among many European allies for increased support to Kiev, despite him previously expressing frustration over Putin’s unwillingness to negotiate directly with Zelensky.
Zelensky commented after returning home: – We have moved closer to a possible end to the war. That doesn’t mean it will definitely end, but President Trump has achieved a lot in the Middle East, and riding that wave he wants to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.
One of Britain’s highest-ranking military officers assesses that Ukraine will never be able to defeat Russia on the battlefield and should instead negotiate for peace.
In an interview with The Independent’s podcast World of Trouble, Field Marshal Lord David Richards argues that Ukraine simply does not have the capacity to drive Russian forces from its territory and should instead seek a negotiated solution.
Richards, who was promoted to the country’s most prestigious five-star military rank earlier this year and led NATO forces during the troop surge in Afghanistan, is critical of how Ukraine’s allies have managed their support.
— What we have done in the case of Ukraine is encourage Ukraine to fight, but not given them the means to win, says the former Chief of the Defence Staff.
When Richards is asked to reflect on Ukraine’s chances of success against Russia, he is clear.
— My view is that they would not win.
When the interviewer asks whether Ukraine could win even with the right resources, the answer is brief.
— No.
Pressed further on whether the right resources could make a difference, he repeated his answer and added:
— No, they haven’t got the manpower.
Not an existential issue for the West
Richards, who is the only British officer to have commanded large American combat forces since 1945, believes the prospects for Ukraine are bleak.
— Unless we were to go in with them – which we won’t do because Ukraine is not an existential issue for us. It clearly is for the Russians, by the way.
— We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war. We are, you can argue – and I absolutely accept it – in some sort of hybrid war. But that’s not the same as a shooting war in which our soldiers are dying in large numbers, Richards continues.
He emphasizes that despite sympathy for the Ukrainians and their achievements, he still believes the war is not in the West’s vital national interests.
— My instinct is that the best Ukraine can do, and you already see President Zelensky, who’s an inspirational leader … the best they can do is a sort of a score draw.
Zelensky met Trump
The statement comes after Volodymyr Zelensky flew to Washington DC to meet Donald Trump and try to convince him to give Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles.
But Zelensky’s plans to pressure Trump appear to have been undermined by Vladimir Putin, who spoke with the American president hours before the White House meeting with the Ukrainian leader.
At a packed press conference, Trump appeared hesitant to give away American weapons, while maintaining a friendly tone with Zelensky. The American president emphasized his own country’s need to maintain stockpiles.
Zelensky said very little, except to politely suggest that Ukraine could offer its drone technology in an exchange deal. Trump seemed open to the idea.
After the summit, Zelensky said that Trump had not said no to the idea of Tomahawk missiles – but not yes either.
Iraq war built on lies
In the extensive interview about his military life, the field marshal revealed that although his career has been successful, there have been occasions when he came into conflict with the establishment and often disagreed with his military and political superiors.
As a major general and deputy chief of the army under General Sir Mike Jackson, he says it was obvious to him that British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government was lying about its claims that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Tony Blair’s government lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to legitimize the invasion. Photo: World Economic Forum/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Together with other senior officers, he questioned the legality of Britain’s decision to join American forces in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Before the British joined the invasion, Blair presented an intelligence document to parliament claiming that the Iraqi dictator was developing nuclear weapons.
“This stinks”
The document, which has since been mocked as “the dodgy dossier” for its unfounded claims, caused dismay among senior officers who had access to the actual intelligence information.
— “I and others encouraged the chief of defence staff to query whether this was legal and what was the basis of this intelligence, says Lord Richards.
— I do remember one officer – who I won’t name but was on the intelligence side – saying, ‘Don’t worry. We’ll find something to put’. Yeah, ‘don’t worry. We’ll find something about that. We’ll justify what we were doing’, he recounts.
— I went back to say to Mike Jackson, ‘This stinks’.
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns believes that one of China's greatest advantages is the Chinese Communist Party's ability to think strategically and long-term.
Nicholas Burns, who served as U.S. Ambassador to China for three years, argues that the Western world has systematically underestimated the Chinese superpower’s capabilities in technology, military, and infrastructure.
In a recent interview, the experienced diplomat highlights several areas where China is far ahead of the United States – and warns that American policymakers still fail to see the full gravity of the situation from the perspective of U.S. strategic interests.
Nicholas Burns, 68, concluded his tenure as U.S. Ambassador to China in January 2025 after three intense years in Beijing. With a long career in American diplomacy behind him – having served under six presidents and nine secretaries of state – he returned to Harvard University where he is a professor of diplomacy and international relations.
Now he speaks openly about his experiences and observations from his time in China. And the picture he paints is more alarming than many are willing to acknowledge.
Impressive infrastructure
— We’ve underestimated Chinese power in the world, Burns states bluntly. As an example, he highlights China’s high-speed rail system:
— Those trains are fabulous. We rode those trains. You know, you can go from Beijing to Shanghai in four and a half hours.
The distance is over a thousand kilometers, he points out, drawing a clear comparison with the American rail system Amtrak:
— We have Amtrak’s just not like that.
But it is in scientific and technological capacity that Burns sees the greatest challenge.
— That’s the coin of the realm in our decade, he says and continues:
— In the next few decades. Which society will turn out more scientists and engineers?
Former US ambassador to China Nicholas Burns shakes hands with Xu Kunlin, governor of Jiangsu Province in China during a meeting in 2023. Photo: US Department of State
“Alarming” education statistics
The statistics he presents are striking. 34 percent of first-year students at Chinese universities study engineering or STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In the United States, the corresponding figure is 5.6 percent.
— And they’re a much bigger country, Burns adds.
He also points to a peculiar paradox in American society. At Harvard’s graduation ceremony, where he himself teaches, the pattern is clear:
— At Harvard graduation, where I teach, when we ask our graduate students to stand up as a class, chemistry majors, biology majors, physics majors, largely Asian Americans, Some American citizens, excuse me, Asians, American citizens of Asian ethnicity or Chinese.
The same pattern is visible in business.
— Last week, when President Trump gathered all the tech titans of the United States in the White House, tremendous number of those tech titans are Indian Americans and Chinese Americans, Burns says.
His conclusion is scathing:
— We’re not competing when it really matters for the future. And that’s on technology.
Overlooked military strength
Burns also addresses the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), whose capabilities he believes the Western world underestimates.
— Some people have said, well, it hasn’t fought since 1978. What is what it’s worth? I’ve seen the PLA, he says firmly.
— I think we’ve underestimated their military strength, their technology strength.
FMR U.S AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: “WE’VE UNDERESTIMATED CHINA’S POWER”
Nicholas Burns:
“Those trains are fabulous – you can go from Beijing to Shanghai in 4 1/2 hours, over 1000 kilometers. We have Amtrak, and it’s just not like that.
One of China’s greatest advantages, according to Burns, is the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to think strategically and long-term.
— The Communist Party of China is strategic and they don’t have to worry about, you know, we want to worry about what the press says. I mean, that’s a good thing to have the press challenging the government. They have nobody opposing them. And so they can make big bets over 10, 20, 30 years.
As an example, he mentions China’s systematic Africa policy:
— For 35 consecutive years, the Chinese foreign minister, whoever that person is, has made his first trip of the year in January to Africa to show the Africans you are our priority.
The contrast with the United States is striking.
— I think President Trump never went to Africa in his first term. President Biden went once to Angola for two or three days in December, at the very end of his term, Burns says.
His conclusion is unequivocal:
— They’re strategic, and we’re not competing on that level. So actually, I think the Chinese technology military economics are stronger than we think they are. And I think we’ve underestimated them, and we can’t do that any longer.
