The move was ordered by the Czech Republic’s Lubomir Metnar, who said foreign symbols will only be displayed during major diplomatic events
The Czech authorities have removed the Ukrainian flag from the Interior Ministry building, spokesman Ondrej Kratoska said on Thursday. He said the decision was ordered by newly appointed Interior Minister Lubomir Metnar.
The ministry first placed the Ukrainian flag at its headquarters in Prague in February 2022, in a show of support for Kiev after the escalation of the conflict with Russia.
Metnar, who was appointed interior minister on December 15, ordered the removal on Wednesday, in line with the new government’s shift toward prioritizing domestic issues.
“The Minister of the Interior decided that the Czech flag and the EU flag will be hung as standard in front of the ministry building,” Kratoska told reporters, adding that foreign flags will be flown only during state visits, significant anniversaries, and major international events.
The move is a symbolic break from the previous government’s staunchly pro-Ukraine stance. In a similar gesture last month, newly elected Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies Tomio Okamura ordered the Ukrainian flag removed from the lower house headquarters.
Parties in the new Czech ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Andrej Babis said throughout the election campaign that they would prioritize domestic issues. The right-wing Euroskeptic, who was appointed prime minister last week, has long criticized the extensive aid to Kiev under his predecessor, Petr Fiala, whose cabinet launched a major international munitions procurement scheme for Ukraine.
Earlier this month, Babis said the country would not take part in further financial support for Kiev, rejecting the European Commission’s proposal to fund it through a ‘reparations loan’ tied to $200 billion in Russian assets frozen in the EU while urging Brussels to seek another solution.
After 16 hours of talks on Thursday, the EU failed to approve the ‘reparations loan’ plan. Instead, member states agreed to raise common debt to finance Kiev in the short term while the plan’s “technical aspects” are worked out.
Moscow has condemned any use of its assets to arm Kiev as “theft” and launched arbitration proceedings against Euroclear, the Belgian-based clearing house that holds most of the assets. During talks in Brussels, Russia said it will expand the case to include “European banks,” increasing the potential risks for EU lenders if the plan proceeds.
Victims can seek compensation with federal help, including over resisting DEI programs, the workplace civil rights chief has said
The head of the US federal body responsible for enforcing workplace civil rights has urged white men to come forward if they believe they have been discriminated against, including under diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
In a video message published on Wednesday, Andrea Lucas, chair of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), called on white male employees and job applicants who feel they were targeted because of their race or sex to submit formal complaints. She emphasized that strict deadlines apply for filing claims with the agency.
“The EEOC is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating all forms of race and sex discrimination,” Lucas said.
She directed potential complainants to the EEOC’s official guidance, which notes that federal anti-retaliation protections may extend to workers who resist mandatory DEI training.
Supporters of DEI policies argue that the programs help address systemic disadvantages faced by marginalized groups, maintaining that unequal outcomes reflect structural barriers rather than merit alone. Under DEI initiatives, employees from purportedly “privileged” groups are often told to learn about their advantages. Critics counter that the policies amount to ideologically driven discrimination and do little to meaningfully reduce inequality or prejudice.
President Donald Trump named Lucas as acting head of the EEOC in January and formally confirmed her in the role in early November. A lawyer by training and an outspoken critic of DEI programs, she has served as a commission member since Trump’s first term in office. Her reconfirmation by Congress in July drew opposition from Democratic lawmakers, who accused her of politicizing the agency.
The US umbrella may no longer be a dependable pillar of national security, the official has reportedly told the media
Japan needs to consider developing its own nuclear weapons, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has reportedly told journalists.
The unnamed official, who advises the prime minister on national security, argued that Japan’s long-standing reliance on the US nuclear deterrent may no longer be fully reliable, according to media reports. Under these conditions, a departure from the country’s postwar non-nuclear policy could become necessary, the adviser said, as cited by NHK.
Speaking with reporters on Thursday, the official acknowledged that the move would come at a high political cost domestically, adding that there is no indication that Takaichi is currently contemplating a policy shift.
Japan remains the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack. The US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final months of World War II, as the Soviet Union entered the war against Imperial Japan.
After the war, Japan joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which recognizes only five nuclear-armed states – China, France, Russia, the US, and UK. In addition, Tokyo adopted unilateral principles in 1967, pledging not to possess, manufacture, or allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory.
The adviser reportedly suggested that Japan might have to reconsider its commitments in order to establish an independent deterrent in response to perceived threats from China, Russia, and North Korea.
The Russian president spoke for four and a half hours and discussed more than 70 different topics, ranging from global to domestic issues
Russian President Vladimir Putin has held his traditional end-of-year press conference in Moscow.
This year the event was again combined with the ‘Direct Line’, during which Putin responded to questions from citizens and the press, including Western media, on a broad range of domestic and international issues.
Putin fielded questions from a total of more than 2 million submitted by the public, speaking for four and a half hours.
The president is estimated to have touched upon more than 70 different topics, including the Ukraine conflict and questions related to Russian frontline soldiers and their families, domestic issues, and broader geopolitics.
This live feed has now ended, but see below for a full recap of Putin’s key quotes.
The Russian president spoke for four and a half hours and discussed more than 70 different topics, ranging from global to domestic issues
Russian President Vladimir Putin has held his traditional end-of-year press conference in Moscow.
This year the event was again combined with the ‘Direct Line’, during which Putin responded to questions from citizens and the press, including Western media, on a broad range of domestic and international issues.
Putin fielded questions from a total of more than 2 million submitted by the public, speaking for four and a half hours.
The president is estimated to have touched upon more than 70 different topics, including the Ukraine conflict and questions related to Russian frontline soldiers and their families, domestic issues, and broader geopolitics.
This live feed has now ended, but see below for a full recap of Putin’s key quotes.
How the Ukraine conflict is pushing Europe toward economic self-harm
Modern diplomacy is increasingly taking on strange and contradictory forms. Participants in the latest round of Ukraine-related talks in Berlin report significant progress and even a degree of rapprochement. How accurate these claims are is hard to judge. When Donald Trump says the positions have converged by 90%, he may be correct in a purely numerical sense. But the remaining 10% includes issues of fundamental importance to all sides. This, however, does not stop Trump from insisting that progress is being made. He needs to create a sense of inevitability, believing momentum itself can force an outcome. Perhaps he is right.
What is more paradoxical is the configuration of the negotiations themselves. On one side sits Ukraine, a direct participant in the conflict. On the other are the Western European countries surrounding it. Indirect participants who, in practice, are doing everything possible to prevent an agreement from being reached too quickly. Their goal is clear: To persuade Kiev not to give in to pressure. Meanwhile, the US presents itself as a neutral mediator, seeking a compromise acceptable to everyone.
There are obvious reasons to doubt American neutrality, but let us assume for the sake of argument that Washington is acting in good faith. Even then, one crucial actor is conspicuously absent from the visible negotiating process: Russia. In principle, this is not unusual. Mediators often work separately with opposing sides. But in the public narrative, events are presented as if the most important decisions are being made without Moscow. Trump’s allies and intermediaries pressure Zelensky and the Western Europeans to accept certain terms, after which Russia is expected to simply agree. If it does not, it is immediately accused of sabotaging peace.
Of course, outside observers do not see everything. It is entirely possible that communication between American and Russian negotiators is more extensive than it appears. There is precedent for this. Still, the overall structure of the process remains fragile, contradictory, and unstable.
The question of confiscating frozen Russian assets has become the central point of contention, not because of political rhetoric, but because Western Europe has exhausted almost every other option. The EU countries simply do not have the resources to continue financing Ukraine’s war effort and economic survival from their own budgets. Even the most outspoken supporters of Kiev, including figures such as Kaja Kallas, now openly admit that further domestic funding would be politically toxic. The US, for its part, has drawn a firm line: No additional American money.
This is why the seizure of Russian assets has become not merely a tactical issue, but a strategic one. The EU sees it as the only remaining source of funding. Yet the implications go far beyond the war itself.
The issue of expropriating Russian assets is momentous because it strikes at the foundations of the entire European economic system. The inviolability of property has been a cornerstone of capitalism for centuries. While history is full of wars and seizures, Western European rationality has traditionally rested on the idea that assets are protected by law, not subject to arbitrary political confiscation.
Equally important is Western Europe’s long-standing development model. For centuries, it accumulated wealth by attracting external capital. In earlier eras, this took the brutal form of colonial extraction. Later, it evolved into something more subtle: Western Europe positioned itself as a safe and predictable haven where states, corporations, and individuals could store their wealth under reliable legal guarantees.
Seizing Russian assets would undermine this entire model. It would send a clear signal that property protections are conditional and reversible. Once that precedent is set, the consequences are impossible to contain.
This is why Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has sounded the alarm. Belgium holds the largest share of frozen Russian assets, and De Wever understands the risks better than most. He has rightly noted that references to war and ‘Russian aggression’ are irrelevant in this context. Questions of compensation or reparations can only be addressed after a conflict ends. During the conflict itself, the only viable approach is to ensure the inviolability of assets belonging to all warring parties. Otherwise, a Pandora’s box will be opened, from which anything could emerge.
Belgium’s concerns are also practical. De Wever knows his European partners well. He suspects that if Russia were to retaliate by holding Belgium responsible as the custodian of the assets, other EU states would quietly distance themselves. Brussels, the capital of Belgium, would be left to deal with decisions made in Brussels, the political center of the EU. It is no coincidence that countries with smaller holdings of Russian assets, such as France, Britain, and Japan, have refused to confiscate them outright. They are reluctant to be first in line when the consequences arrive.
None of this means that the EU will back down. On the contrary, many European leaders appear convinced that the continent’s fate depends on the outcome of the Ukraine conflict – and that the conflict depends on access to Russian money. This belief will drive increasingly aggressive attempts to force the issue.
Whether the negotiations unfolding in Berlin, Moscow, and even Alaska lead to anything concrete may well hinge on this single question. The EU has succeeded, at least partially, in placing itself at the center of the diplomatic process. But by doing so, it has also placed its own economic foundations at risk.
If the frozen assets are seized, the consequences will not be limited to relations with Russia. They will reverberate across the global financial system, undermining trust in Europe as a legal and economic space. Pandora’s box, once opened, cannot be closed again.
This article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Sharif Osman Hadi, a key figure in last year’s violent protests that ousted the government in Dhaka, was shot earlier this month
Violent protests erupted in Bangladesh overnight after a leader of 2024 uprising was shot earlier this month died. Sharif Osman Hadi, who was shot by masked assailants in Dhaka last week, died on Thursday while being treated in Singapore, authorities announced.
Protesters took to the streets demanding the arrest of assailants, and the offices of prominent Bangladeshi newspapers The Daily Star and Prothom Alo were vandalised, local media reported.
“As the office of Prothom Alo was subjected to massive attacks, vandalism and arson last night, it was not possible to continue its normal operations. Therefore, the printed version of Prothom Alo could not be published today. Its online portal is also temporarily closed,” the media outlet said in a statement.
Hadi was shot while leaving a mosque in the capital Dhaka, a day after Bangladesh’s top election official announced the date of the first elections in the country after an uprising in 2024.
The Sheikh Hasina government was ousted in the protests in Bangladesh then.
Hadi, spokesperson for Inquilab Mancha, or Platform for Revolution, which describes itself as a “revolutionary cultural platform inspired by the spirit of uprising,” was a key figure in the 2024 protests. He was planning to contest in the general elections to be held in the country on February 12.
The developments also come two days after New Delhi summoned Dhaka’s envoy to convey concerns over the “deteriorating security environment in Bangladesh.”
New Delhi had said it expects Dhaka to ensure the safety of its diplomatic missions and posts in Bangladesh.
Earlier this month, Bangladesh had alleged that Hasina has been allowed to make “incendiary” statements from Indian soil, a charge New Delhi has denied.
Dhaka has demanded the extradition of Hasina from India after a court handed a death sentence against her for crimes against humanity linked to the violent crackdown on protesters in the 2024 uprising.
The former prime minister has alleged that the sentence was politically motivated.
Hasina’s Awami League, which had been in power for 15 years before the uprising, has been barred from participating in the polls.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohammad Yunus is serving as the chief adviser of the interim Bangladesh government currently running the country.
Trade turnover between the two nations topped $200 billion for the third consecutive year, Igor Morgulov has told RT
Russia and China have continued to rapidly expand their bilateral relationship across economic, diplomatic, and people-to-people channels in 2025, with trade turnover exceeding $200 billion for a third consecutive year, Moscow’s ambassador to Beijing, Igor Morgulov, has told RT.
In an interview aired on Thursday, the envoy suggested that this year was “very successful for the development of our relations,” adding that Russian-Chinese ties “were deepened and strengthened in almost all directions.”
He said 2025 was also marked by the 80th anniversary of the shared victory in World War II. “The fraternity of our countries is still one of the important elements of our strategic partnership,” the envoy said.
Morgulov noted that the symbolism was underscored by reciprocal high-level visits, with Russian President Vladimir Putin attending ceremonies in Beijing on September 3 marking victory over Japan and Chinese President Xi Jinping being the main guest at Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations on May 9.
The envoy highlighted that China remains one of Russia’s top trading partners and that, despite a modest 7.8 % drop over the past 11 months, bilateral trade still topped $203 billion. “This is a serious achievement,” he said.
Morgulov noted that he “would not dramatize too much” the slight reduction, attributing it to natural market adjustments after trade expanded by nearly $100 billion over three years.
The diplomat said Western sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict have affected trade but stressed that Russia and China have built effective mechanisms to sustain growth. According to Morgulov, both Russia and China treat Western sanctions as “illegal” and aimed exclusively at restraining the ties between the two countries.
He also highlighted promising logistics cooperation, citing a recent Chinese container ship voyage from Ningbo to a British port via the Northern Sea Route in 20 days, compared with 30-40 days through the Suez Canal.
Morgulov added that people-to-people ties are expanding following the mutual cancellation of tourist visas. China lifted visa requirements on September 15, and Russia followed suit on December 1, leading to a 40% increase in Russian tourist flows to China since mid-September, he said.
The Hungarian prime minister has criticized the bloc’s decision to provide Ukraine with a €90 billion interest-free loan
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has criticized the EU’s decision to provide Ukraine with a €90 billion interest-free loan, warning that the move brings the bloc “closer to war.” He argued, however, that an alternative plan to seize Russian frozen assets would have been even worse.
Speaking early Friday after EU leaders agreed on the joint borrowing scheme, Orban described it as a fundamentally flawed decision that will burden European taxpayers without delivering realistic returns.
“It is a bad decision, which brings Europe closer to the war,” Orban said, as cited by Euronews. “It looks like a loan, but of course, the Ukrainians will never be able to pay it back. So it is basically losing money. And those who are behind that loan will take the responsibility and the financial consequences of that.”
Under the agreement, the EU will raise funds on capital markets to provide €90 billion in support for Ukraine in 2026-27. The compromise came after days of tense negotiations and the collapse of a more controversial proposal to use frozen Russian assets.
Hungary, along with Slovakia and the Czech Republic, secured opt-outs from the joint borrowing arrangement and will not take part in providing guarantees for the loan. Orban said Budapest agreed to lift its veto only after obtaining assurances that Hungary would not be involved financially.
“The loan required a unanimous decision, and finally we gave up the right to veto, and in exchange we got the opt-out,” Orban said, confirming that Hungary would not take part in the compromise scheme.
Despite his opposition to the final decision, the prime minister said the proposal to use frozen Russian assets to fund a ‘reparations loan’ would have been far more dangerous.
“A reparations loan would mean a war immediately,” he warned. “Think about it: there are two parties warring against each other. You are a third one who goes there, taking away a huge amount of money from one and giving it to its enemy. What does it mean? It’s war.”
The Hungarian leader has repeatedly accused Brussels of escalating the Ukraine conflict through financial and military support, while arguing that the EU should prioritize diplomacy and deescalation. Moscow has likewise condemned Western financial and military backing for Kiev, warning of legal and economic consequences.
The bloc has reached a compromise on a €90 billion lifeline for Kiev, pushing the ‘reparations loan’ scheme further down the road
The EU’s plan to steal Russian assets held in the bloc in order to fund Ukraine’s military and prolong its disastrous war has failed to get the backing of bloc leaders. The other key EU summit pillar – approving a contentious trade deal with the South American bloc Mercosur – was also aborted at the last minute amid chaotic protests by several-thousand farmers in the Belgian capital.
Following some 16 hours of talks, during which the deep divisions within the bloc were exacerbated by legislative overreach pushed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her compatriot German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, European Council discussions ended without agreement on the controversial proposal to use frozen Russian assets to finance a €90 billion ($105 billion) loan aimed at allowing Kiev to continue its military campaign.
Instead, member states agreed to raise common debt – borrowing on the capital markets – to finance Kiev in the short term while “technical aspects of the reparations loan are worked out,” according to European Council President Antonio Costa.
“We have a deal,” Costa wrote on X around 3am, without addressing the funding mechanism behind the package. Merz similarly glossed over the bloc’s failure to back the loan with frozen Russian assets, insisting that “Ukraine will receive an interest-free loan of €90 billion, as I suggested.”
Moscow has already initiated arbitration proceedings against Euroclear, the Belgian-based clearing house that holds some €180 billion of Russian funds, and during the talks in Brussels announced that it had widened the case to include “European banks,” increasing the risk to European lenders of backing the plan.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever was at the center of the disagreement, though his opposition to the plan to steal Russian assets was supported by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babis. The latter three reportedly tabled an option for EU members to provide joint debt for Ukraine instead – exempting their countries from the idea but also pledging not to veto it.
Merz and von der Leyen are thought to have rejected that plan, and instead insisted on more a dangerous option to steal Russia’s assets and attempt to give Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky enough money to keep fighting for two more years. As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk put it ahead of the meeting, “either money today or blood tomorrow.”
Without the EU war chest, Zelensky faces a short-term economic crisis. Ukraine needs some €72 billion to repay a G7 loan and stay afloat fiscally.
Following the EU Council’s failure to endorse the Merz/von der Leyen war option, the bloc has effectively denied itself the “seat at the table” hosting Ukraine peace talks that it was demanding since the US took the diplomatic initiative.
Attention will now turn to a meeting between US and Russian delegations in Miami, and to US President Donald Trump’s call for peace by Christmas.
