The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is set to withdraw most of its personnel by mid-2027 due to UN-wide cost cuts, according to its spokeswoman Kandice Ardiel.

Established in 1978, the force received its final mandate extension last August, when the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to end the peacekeeping mission by the end of this year. Israel and the US had advocated dismantling the force, with the Trump administration regarding it as a waste of money and an obstacle to the Lebanese government regaining effective control of its territory from the militant group Hezbollah.

The troop presence is now subject to an “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” within one year after its mandate expires on December 31. UNIFIL is set to gradually transfer its positions to Lebanese government forces.

The withdrawal process is apparently being accelerated by the financial position of the UN itself. Speaking to AFP on Tuesday, Ardiel said UNIFIL had to reduce its presence in Lebanon by some 2,000 in recent months as a “direct result” of the UN-wide financial crisis and “the cost-saving measures all missions have been forced to implement.” The force currently stands at around 7,500 peacekeepers from 48 countries, according to the spokeswoman.

The drawdown of the UN force comes amid fears a new major conflict could erupt in southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. The two sides entered a US-brokered ceasefire in November 2024, which was supposed to end more than a year of hostilities triggered by Hezbollah’s effort to launch attacks on Israel in solidarity with Gaza. Despite the truce, West Jerusalem has been routinely attacking what it calls “terror infrastructure” and repeatedly shelling UNIFIL positions in the process.

Last week, Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Aleksandr Rudakov said Moscow has been making its best effort to restore calm in the region.  

“Following the latest Lebanese-Israeli escalation, we are working consistently with all parties involved to maintain the fragile ceasefire. We are using both our bilateral international communication channels and multilateral platforms to do so,” the diplomat told RIA Novosti.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on

It seems to have dawned on the EU’s energy commissioner that the bloc has a bit of a dependency problem. “There’s a growing concern, which I share, that we risk replacing one dependency with another,” Dan Jorgensen said of the switch from Russian to US energy. You wish, bro! Truth is, they haven’t even managed that much.

Now the EU bureaucracy itself has started yelling at the unelected executive that sets policy for the bloc. Remember that much-hyped energy transition to renewables that Brussels promised to lock in by 2030? The one they keep mentioning in between warnings that Putin is supposedly about to roll into Europe at around the same time?

Well, it turns out that the bloc’s own European Court of Auditors has taken a look and said, hey bozos, this renewables transition has about the same odds of materializing by 2030 as a herd of purple unicorns. Why? Well, the title of their report kind of gives it away: “Critical raw materials for the energy transition – Not a rock-solid policy.” Translation: you don’t actually have a large, stable supply of the minerals needed to build batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels.

As it turns out, the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, passed in 2024 to address shortages across 26 different minerals, was made non-binding. In other words, optional. Which, as everyone knows, is the surefire way to ensure that something gets done.

Fourteen agreements in five years, half of them with countries that have “low governance scores,” meaning the corruption is pre-baked into the contract. Which might explain why imports have gone down instead of up – by HALF.

The legislation also aimed to source 25% of these minerals from “recycled sources.” Literally turning household appliances into high-tech weapons, just like the EU once claimed Russia was doing in Ukraine. But that’s not even happening either, actually. Recycling rates sit between a dazzling 1% and 5% for a handful of minerals, according to the report.

So yeah, that 2030 target isn’t looking too good. Has anyone told Queen Ursula von der Leyen? Because just a few days ago, she was lecturing the rest of the planet on how to pull it off. “All continents will have to speed up the transition towards net zero and deal with the growing burden of climate change… Its impact is impossible to ignore… From decarbonizing to nature-based solutions, from building a circular economy to developing nature credits, the Paris Agreement continues to be the best hope for all humanity. So Europe will stay the course and keep working with all nations that want to protect nature and stop global warming,” said the unelected European Commission chief.

Since renewables aren’t remotely ready to match the EU’s fantasy projections, it’s lucky that Russian gas is still flowing – specifically through the Turkstream pipeline – jumping 10 percent in January compared to last year, according to Reuters, even as the EU congratulates itself for cutting off its Russian supply.

But who needs boring, reliable energy sources like gas – or nuclear – when you can run an economy on happy dreamies for greenies while pretending that because of your efforts, Putin has downgraded from caviar to instant noodles?

Hang on. The Belgian Prime Minister has something to say. “We’ve made dogmatic choices against nuclear energy, which was the stupidity of the century. We are still there now. We’re trying to come back… We’re far,” says Prime Minister Bart De Wever.

Excuse you, sir! This is the next Industrial Revolution you’re talking about! And change doesn’t come cheap, mister!

It also doesn’t come with an iron stomach, apparently. One of the other renewable ideas that the EU has been pushing is getting people to eat bugs for protein, since insects, unlike cows, don’t blast out planet-destroying flatulence and deuces.

The problem is that eating bugs is, scientifically-speaking – how do you say it… Oh yeah, freaking disgusting to most people. Which would explain why Hollywood stars like Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. were trotted out to promote it.

Here’s Iron Guts – er, Iron Man – trying to get you psyched about eating bugs during a chat with Stephen Colbert five years ago: “Well, that’s an insect-based premium protein… The company is called Ynsect… This is a powder derived from the mealworm and it’s an insect protein. Just been approved by the EU for human consumption… The making of it is severely reducing the amount of emissions it takes.”

That French company, Ynsect, with a Y, which stands for, “Y the hell am I having bugs shoved down my throat?”, shut down last December. It had been around since 2011 and still couldn’t make it work. Shocking. Maybe it was the whole “insects are yummy” pitch?

And if the product itself wasn’t gross enough, after the shutdown, employees started talking to French state media about how the horror show began on the factory floor long before any product reached a plate. One former employee said, “There were so many moths that we were breathing them in, and they were getting into our noses and mouths.” I guess that’s like eating Big Macs when you work at McDonald’s.

Anyway, chalk up another massive success for the EU ideologues. €600 million in investment – including around €150 million in public money – gone. To save the creepy-crawly cuisine industry, its lobby is now reportedly pushing the EU to force public institutions, like school cafeterias and other public facilities, to mandate minimum purchases of “innovative, circular bio-based products.” If you’re wondering, that’s lobbyist-speak for bugs after a branding workshop. Hey guys, how about “micro-livestock”? That’s a freebie. You’re welcome.

“If the plebes won’t eat da bugs, then let’s just force feed them to the masses!” I’m sure that’ll go over well. The EU’s grand plans for the future usually boil down to hoping against all odds that reality, like its own citizens, just falls into line and swallows whatever dodgy dogmatic fodder that it’s fed.

After last August’s meeting between the Russian and American presidents in Alaska, a new phrase entered diplomatic circulation: the “spirit of Anchorage.” The substance of the talks was never officially disclosed and can only be reconstructed from selective leaks. The form, however, was striking: a personal greeting, an honor guard, a shared limousine. Symbolism mattered. It was meant to signal seriousness.

Yet the question remains: what exactly was born in Anchorage? And does it belong in the lineage of earlier diplomatic “spirits” that once defined entire eras?

The term itself is not new. Before Anchorage, there was the “spirit of Yalta,” the “spirit of Helsinki,” and, briefly, the “spirit of Malta.” All three marked turning points in relations between the great powers during the second half of the twentieth century. Yalta in 1945 laid the foundations of the post-war world order, recognizing the USSR and the United States as its central pillars. Helsinki in 1975 codified that order, even as it quietly set the stage for its eventual erosion. Malta in 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War and, with it, the division of Europe.

These meetings differed in format and outcome. Yalta brought together three victorious powers dividing spheres of influence. Helsinki was the product of prolonged multilateral negotiations designed to stabilize a tense status quo. Malta was a bilateral encounter that effectively ratified the retreat of one side under the banner of a “new world order.” But they shared one defining feature: each sought to determine the parameters of the international system itself.

Does Anchorage belong in this tradition?

Formally speaking, the Alaskan talks focused on Ukraine. That immediately raises a fundamental question. How realistic is it to reach a durable settlement without the direct participation of one of the warring parties? Such an approach is only viable if one of the interlocutors, in this case the United States, is both willing and able to compel Kiev to accept decisions taken without it.

Events since August suggest that Washington lacks this capacity, despite its considerable leverage. A more convincing explanation, however, is that it lacks the motivation. Donald Trump has made resolving the Ukrainian conflict a matter of personal prestige. But prestige is not the same as strategic necessity. For Trump and the narrow circle around him, the precise configuration of a settlement matters less than the avoidance of an outright Russian victory. Beyond that, the exact line of demarcation, and the conditions under which it is maintained, are not critical.

The United States would only deploy the full weight of its political and economic power if it perceived these negotiations as shaping a new world order. That was the case at Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta. It is not the case today.

Moscow, by contrast, has invested Anchorage with precisely this broader meaning. From the very beginning of the military operation, Russia has framed the conflict not primarily in territorial terms, but as a question of European security architecture. Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.

Today, this is often described as the question of “security guarantees for Ukraine.” In reality, it concerns the broader system within which such guarantees would exist. This may ultimately prove the most serious obstacle to any agreement.

Washington’s approach is different. The current American administration does not think in terms of comprehensive frameworks or shared rules. Its vision of world order is far more fragmented and instrumental. Control is exercised through economic pressure, military presence, and political leverage applied selectively to specific regions and problems. It is a model of targeted intervention rather than systemic design. A kind of forceful acupuncture.

In this context, agreements are not about principles, but about transactions. They are designed to deliver concrete, often mercantile, outcomes rather than to establish enduring rules of interaction. Ukraine, from this perspective, is one issue among many, not the axis around which a new order would be built.

If the goal is merely a political settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian-American format is insufficient. Ukraine itself would have to be involved, as would Europe. While Europe’s strategic weight is limited, it retains a significant capacity to obstruct any settlement it finds unacceptable. Ignoring this reality would be a mistake.

For the “spirit of Anchorage” to stand alongside Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta, it would need to aim higher: at the construction of a new global political system to replace the one that emerged after the Second World War and has endured, in various forms, for nearly 80 years.

Washington does not see Moscow as a central interlocutor in such a project. At most, this role is tentatively assigned to China. However, even that is far from settled. As a result, the “spirit of Anchorage” hovers uneasily between two incompatible interpretations of what the conversation is actually about.

From the Russian perspective, it is about redefining the foundations of European and global security. From the American side, it is about managing a specific conflict without altering the broader architecture of power. When the parties are not even discussing the same subject, the risk is obvious.

In such circumstances, the “spirit” inevitably fades, becoming less a guiding force than a rhetorical shadow. A ghost of an agreement that never quite came into being.

Could this change? Possibly, but only if events intervene that force both sides to move beyond regional calculations and confront the need for a more fundamental reordering. Until then, Anchorage remains suspended between ambition and reality, its promise unfulfilled.

This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team 

An Albanian actress has sued the Balkan country’s government over its use of her likeness for a virtual minister for digital intelligence.

Diella, billed as the world’s first virtual government official, could soon lose her face after Anila Bisha, the actress whose likeness was used to create the AI bot, sued the government, media reported on Wednesday.

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama last year floated the idea of appointing an AI minister and weeks later unveiled ‘Diella’, a virtual official tasked with tackling corruption in public procurement. Albania ranked 80th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in 2024.

The bot initially launched on the e-Albania platform as a virtual assistant helping citizens access state services, appearing as a young woman in traditional Albanian dress.

Now authorities risk forfeiting the right to use the image of the virtual minister, who was modelled on the appearance and voice of actress Anila Bisha. She alleges her image was used without proper permission to create the virtual minister.

The actress has filed a lawsuit against the Council of Ministers, Prime Minister Edi Rama, a private company involved in the project and the National Agency for Information Society (AKSHI), according to Gazeta Express.  

Bisha claimed her contract with the company Aleat allowed the use of her likeness only for a virtual assistant on the e-Albania platform and only until the end of 2025, and did not cover its use for creating or promoting a “virtual minister.”

“In our view, this lawsuit is nonsense, but we welcome the opportunity to solve it once and for all in a court of law,” Albanian government spokesperson Manjola Hasa told Politico.

In court documents reported by multiple Albanian media outlets, the 57-year-old actress is seeking an injunction to immediately halt the use of her image for AI minister Diella until the legal case is resolved, saying the government’s unauthorized use has caused “significant and irreversible” harm.

Last September, Bisha told local television that she had recorded video and audio for the e-Albania chatbot for a limited period and nominal payment, with no permission for other uses.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on