Gorav

Secretary of State Marco Rubio questions NATO’s value, warning the alliance becomes a “one-way street” if the U.S. can’t use European bases to defend its own interests: “Sean, I’ve been one of the strongest defenders of NATO during my time as a United States senator, because I found great value in it. And it wasn’t just about defending Europe—I said it also allowed us to have military bases in Europe that let us project power into different parts of the world when our national security was threatened. If now we have reached a point where the NATO alliance means that we can’t use those bases—that, in fact, we can no longer use those bases to defend America’s interests—then NATO is a one-way street. Then NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to defend Europe, but when we need their help—not even airstrikes, just access to military bases—their answer is no. Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question.  So I think there’s no doubt, unfortunately, that after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to reexamine that relationship. We’re going to have to reexamine the value of NATO for our country. Ultimately, that’s a decision for the president to make.”

Trump wants to rip up NATO because we refuse to be dragged into his illegal war. Threats to NATO today become threats to Trident tomorrow. We can't rely on Trump for our national security. Britain needs a truly independent nuclear deterrent, committed to NATO's defence.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 US Secretary of State Marco Rubio demands Iran stop manufacturing drones and missiles used in recent attacks.

The world is being reordered by those who act and those who define. If India wishes to be counted among the latter, it must ensure that its silence does not speak louder than its convictions. We are living through a moment when the rules of the international system are being rewritten in real time. Assassinations of leaders, the killing of civilians, open assertions of force—these are no longer aberrations but instruments. In such a world, silence is not neutrality. It is read, interpreted, and often misread as consent. India has long claimed a distinctive space in global affairs—not as an appendage to power, but as a voice shaped by its own civilisational experience and its history of speaking for sovereignty, restraint, and balance. That voice mattered because it was consistent, even when inconvenient. Strategic autonomy cannot mean adjusting our language to the hierarchy of power. Restraint has its place. Calibration is necessary. But when fundamental questions arise—about sovereignty, about the limits of force, about the protection of civilians—India cannot afford to be silent. A moral compass is not an ornament of foreign policy. It is its direction. Without it, realism drifts into accommodation, and autonomy into ambiguity. This war has damaged India’s interests in almost every practical sense. It has raised costs, narrowed diplomatic room, stressed shipping, complicated Chabahar, and injected fresh instability into a region vital to India’s economy and external strategy. Even if New Delhi can cushion the blow, it cannot plausibly claim that the blow itself serves India. The deeper question is whether India is willing to say so with sufficient clarity.

Intense firing underway in Churachandpur town, with unidentified gunmen targeting security forces. Columns of Assam Rifles, CRPF, police & RAF are retaliating .. This is a major escalation..direct gunfire on security forces in Manipur is extremely rare. Situation remains volatile

MACRON: ANY ROLE IN HORMUZ WOULD BE ONLY IF THERE IS AN END TO HOSTILITIES