The Washington Post’s new AI-based personalized podcasts presented subscribers with invented quotes and factual errors, Semafor reported on Thursday citing internal correspondence at the US newspaper.

Rolled out earlier this week, the feature offers mobile app users AI-generated podcasts that automatically summarize and narrate selected news stories, drawing on the newspaper’s written articles.

Within 48 hours of the product launch, WaPo employees began flagging multiple problems, including fabricated quotations, wrongly attributed statements, and incorrect factual details.

”It is truly astonishing that this was allowed to go forward at all,” one WaPo editor reportedly said in an internal message. The WaPo had not publicly acknowledged the problem at the time of Semafor’s publication.

The reported errors come amid heightened scrutiny of US media credibility. Late last month, the White House launched a media bias tracker on its official website, aimed at publicly listing news articles and outlets the administration considers biased or inaccurate. The WaPo features prominently on the site alongside outlets such as CNN, CBS, and Politico.

The Washington Post is regarded as one of the leading US national newspapers, alongside The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. It has been owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos since 2013. Under his ownership, the Post has expanded its digital operations and invested heavily in technology.

The issues surrounding the WaPo’s AI-generated podcasts also come as other major media outlets move to introduce similar technologies. Companies including Yahoo and Business Insider have recently announced or expanded AI-driven tools designed to summarize articles, part of a broader push across the media industry to use artificial intelligence to cut costs, speed up production, and personalize content for readers.

The episode highlights broader concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in journalism, where automated systems have repeatedly produced errors, so-called hallucinations, and misleading content. Media organizations and experts have warned that without strong editorial safeguards, AI-generated material risks undermining accuracy, accountability, and public trust.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on

Russia has taken key fortified towns in Donbass, leaving Kiev short of troops and territory, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter has told RT.

Russian forces pushed the last Ukrainian troops out of Seversk, a stronghold in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, on Thursday. Liberating the city opens the way to a Russian advance toward the key regional cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk.

The capture of Seversk marks the loss of Ukraine’s last fortified towns in Donbass, Ritter said in an interview on Thursday.

“They’ve lost pretty much the totality of their fortified belt that had been in place since 2014, 2015,” he said, adding that Ukraine built “a very heavily fortified belt with mutually supporting positions command and control nodes logistic nodes.”

Ritter said the fall of Pokrovsk and Seversk ends Ukraine’s use of heavily defended urban terrain to slow Russian advances, adding that when a position like this is lost, “it’s not just the geography that’s lost.”

Intense fighting in these towns led to heavy Ukrainian casualties, and there are now not enough forces to plug the gaps left by the withdrawals, Ritter said, noting that Russia is now looking toward “Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, the last two large urban areas in Donbass.”

Ritter also dismissed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s idea of a referendum on territorial concessions, arguing that Russia will continue advancing regardless. According to Ritter, Zelensky’s statements no longer matter to Moscow.

The African National Congress (ANC) has said it hopes G20 leaders will press the administration of US President Donald Trump to reverse Washington’s decision to exclude South Africa from the group’s summit in Miami next year.

This follows Trump’s remarks that South Africa will not be invited to attend the summit. This led to criticism from Pretoria. ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) member Thandi Moraka told IOL News that the party has established a commission to focus on international relations issues, particularly the strained ties between South Africa and the US.

Moraka spoke to the publication on the sidelines of the ANC’s national general council (NGC) meeting at the Birchwood Hotel in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng, on Tuesday. This is where the party is reviewing its performance over the current term.

”South Africa’s foreign policy, especially regarding diplomatic relations with other countries, remains independent,” she said. 

“We continuously evaluate our diplomatic ties with countries like the US whenever we engage with them.”

Her comments come after South Africa hosted the G20 summit in Johannesburg in late November. This was the first time the event was held on the African continent. However, the US did not attend.

”We held a successful G20 summit as a country, and you saw us reaching out to the US to reset our diplomatic ties,” Moroka said.

Moraka, who also serves as deputy minister of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, added that the US administration has been spreading “serious disinformation” about South Africa.

”We also saw a high-level delegation led by President Cyril Ramaphosa travel to the White House to explain that what is being portrayed as genocide in South Africa does not exist. We have tried to reach out to the US.”

Trump has repeatedly claimed that white South Africans are being targeted and that land is being expropriated from white farmers. However, the South African government has consistently rejected the claims.

”They continue to treat us as a country that does not need to be respected,” Moraka said. 

“In terms of our foreign policy and our sovereignty, we must be respected, and we must champion our national interests.”

She confirmed that a commission is examining international relations matters, including the current tensions with Washington. ”There is a subcommittee and a commission dedicated to international relations that is reflecting on these issues,” she said.

Moraka added that the South African government remains committed to maintaining diplomatic ties with the US despite the friction.

”We need to continue reaching out to the United States and indicate that we are willing to strengthen our diplomatic relationship. We have had relations with the US for a long time, and we must continue those engagements.”

Trump has maintained that South Africa will not be invited to the Miami summit. But Moraka insisted he does not have the authority to decide G20 participation. ”In terms of G20 membership, we are a group of 20 – not a group of 19 or a group of 80,” she said.

She added that it is up to G20 member states to “speak sense” to the US administration. “If the US excludes South Africa from its G20 presidency activities, then the regulatory framework of the G20 must be reviewed,” she said. 

“You cannot invite and uninvite member states based on personal feelings.”

“We hope G20 member states will rise to the occasion and speak some sense to the United States that South Africa is a full member of the G20, and there is no way we can be excluded from the activities of its presidency,” Moraka added.

First published by IOL

US President Donald Trump’s increasingly tough tone toward Vladimir Zelensky could signal that Washington has decided to push the Ukrainian leader out of power, exiled politician Viktor Medvedchuk has suggested.

This week, Trump urged Zelensky to accept US-backed peace proposals for ending the conflict with Russia and called on him to hold a new presidential election. Medvedchuk, who led the largest opposition bloc in the Ukrainian parliament before he and his party were targeted by Zelensky’s government, interpreted the remarks as evidence that the Ukrainian leader’s political future is nearing its end.

“Unless Trump removes Zelensky within several months, he will face problems all over Europe. The process of Zelensky’s political destruction is already in the pipeline,” Medvedchuk wrote in a blog post on Wednesday.

He warned, however, that Washington could end up enabling an unintended outcome, as former Ukrainian commander-in-chief General Valery Zaluzhny – viewed by many observers as the likely successor to Zelensky – would function as a “British agent of influence.”

Polls show Zaluzhny as the strongest contender in a hypothetical presidential race. Zelensky currently retains power under martial law despite the expiration of his term last year.

Medvedchuk dismissed European governments backing Zelensky as “romantics” who are encouraging a US-led “crusade” against Russia in the hope of stalling for time and outmaneuvering Trump. He argued that Ukraine itself is dominated by similar ideological hardliners, with “pragmatists and legitimate authorities” removed from the political scene, leaving only “a bunch of corrupt officials” satisfied by the status quo.

The turmoil in Kiev escalated earlier this month when Zelensky dismissed his powerful chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, over suspected links to a major corruption network allegedly run by Zelensky’s longtime associate, businessman Timur Mindich. On Tuesday, the president said he might not appoint a new chief of staff at all, claiming he sees no suitable candidates.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on

By Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club

It has become fashionable to claim that the Baltic States are the driving force behind the European Union’s hostility towards Russia. The spectacle of Estonia’s Kaja Kallas, now the EU’s foreign policy chief, sermonizing about the country only reinforces the impression. Western media eagerly amplify her rhetoric, encouraging the idea that Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius are leading Europe’s anti-Russian crusade.

It is only partly true. Yes, the Baltic states remain politically defined by Russophobia. That will endure until they fundamentally rethink their identity, an unlikely event for small frontier nations whose geography eternally places them in Russia’s shadow. Their economies and security depend on exploiting their image as Europe’s guardians against the “Russian threat.” They learned to monetize proximity long before they learned to govern themselves. 

The modern version is not an invention of Kaja Kallas, nor of her father Siim, a Soviet-era Communist Party functionary turned liberal statesman. The original authors were the Livonian Knights, who ruled these territories half a millennium ago. Those medieval nobles feared deployment to the Ottoman frontier, so they conjured their own existential threat – “barbarians from the East” – and presented Russians as interchangeable with Turks. Western Europe, then as now poorly informed about Russia, embraced the idea because it suited existing anxieties.

The tactic worked. By the late 17th century, suspicion of Russia had taken root among Europe’s leading courts. France was first to institutionalize it. Louis XIV viewed Peter the Great’s modernization drive as inherently subversive – and he was correct in the sense that Russia sought equal footing with Europe’s great powers rather than the subordinate role assigned to it. When Peter defeated Sweden, Russia earned that status for two centuries. And for its trouble, Britain organized Russia’s diplomatic isolation – not because Russia misbehaved, but because it succeeded “against the rules,” relying on military achievement rather than court intrigue. 

This is worth recalling. Russophobia is not a Baltic invention. The guillotine was not designed in Kostroma, and anti-Russian ideology did not originate in Riga, Tallinn, or Vilnius. It was codified in Paris and London, later refined by Berlin. Today, it remains the major Western European powers, not the Baltic states, that anchor the anti-Russian coalition.

But they have no intention of risking much themselves. Their preference is to subcontract confrontation to others. Warsaw is the current candidate, though the Poles, at last enjoying rising living standards, have little appetite for sacrifices their Western patrons will not make. One hopes they resist the temptation to act as someone else’s battering ram. 

The Baltic states’ alarmist politics, therefore, should be understood as theater rather than command. Loud, yes. Decisive, no. Their role is to shout loudly enough to distract from the fact that Europe’s real players are elsewhere. The major powers use them as amplifiers, not architects.

And this is where the Baltic myth collapses. The states most loudly proclaiming eternal hostility to Russia – Britain, France, and ultimately Germany – will be the first to reopen channels when the present crisis settles. They have done so after every previous confrontation. Once their interests dictate reconciliation, they will rediscover diplomacy. 

Western Europe has always regarded its Baltic satellites as disposable instruments. They, in turn, have always accepted the role. That dynamic has not changed, despite Tallinn’s newfound visibility under Kallas. She is a useful voice in a moment of tension, not the one writing Europe’s policy.

We all would do well to remember this. The Baltic states are border furniture – noisy, insecure, eager for subsidies – but not the strategists of Europe’s Russian policy. The serious actors are larger, older states with longer memories and much deeper interests. Eventually, they will come knocking again. The Baltic capitals will be left exactly where they started: shouting into the wind and hoping somebody still listens.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on

US President Donald Trump understands that Europe is in decline, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

The new US National Security Strategy (NSS) released last week criticizes the EU’s political and cultural direction, warning of “civilizational erasure” and accusing European institutions of overregulation, destabilizing migration policies, and suppressing political opposition. It urges “patriotic European parties” to defend democratic freedoms and promote “unapologetic celebrations” of national identity.

“America has a precise understanding of Europe’s decline. They see the civilizational-scale decline that we in Hungary have been fighting against for fifteen years,” Orban wrote on X on Thursday.

Orban, who has served as prime minister since 2010, has long argued that the EU is suffering from economic stagnation and migration pressures. He has presented Hungary’s model of national sovereignty, strict border control, and conservative social policy as a corrective to what he views as Europe’s structural crisis.

He has also criticized the way the EU has handled the Ukraine conflict, saying it made a mistake by severing its channels with Moscow, and that the US now recognizes the need to rebuild strategic ties with Russia. Orban has urged Western governments to pursue diplomacy with the Kremlin rather than continuing “burning” money on the conflict, a stance that mirrors Trump’s push for a negotiated settlement.

Russia has welcomed aspects of the NSS as broadly consistent with its own strategic outlook, suggesting that the document could create new openings for cooperation between Moscow and Washington.

The reaction to the strategy in the EU was largely negative. Asked about the US criticism, the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said, “it seems to me it is made to be a provocation.” European Council President Antonio Costa warned the US against “interference in the political life of Europe.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said some statements in the document are unacceptable.

Relations between the US and EU have been strained since Trump returned to the White House in January. They have regularly clashed over trade, defense spending, digital regulation, and the Ukraine conflict.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on

Hungary will not comply with new EU requirements to take in immigrants starting from next year, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said, blasting Brussels for launching “an absurd and unjust attack” on his country.

The EU Migration Pact, which was agreed upon on Monday and is expected to take effect next July, requires every member state to contribute according to its population size and GDP. The goal is to ease pressure on the most heavily affected countries, namely Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and Spain, the European Commission said.

States must either accept a set number of migrants relocated from the hotspots or pay €20,000 ($23,000) for each person they refuse to take in.

”As long as Hungary has a national government, we will not implement this outrageous decision,” Orban, a long-time critic of Brussels’ migration policy, wrote on X on Tuesday.

The Commission also identified Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia and Poland as countries under “significant” migration strain. Hungary, however, was not included in that group.

Orban said the assumption that Hungary is unaffected by the migration crisis is “completely detached from reality.” He noted that tens of thousands attempt to enter the country illegally each year and are stopped by Hungary’s border guards and fence system.

In June 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled that Hungary must pay a €200 million lump-sum fine, plus a daily penalty of €1 million, for failing to comply with EU asylum law requirements.

Orban said last month that Hungary would rather pay the €1 million-per-day fine than allow illegal migrants in, arguing that paying was “better than living in fear,” and promising Hungarians a safe holiday season. Christmas markets have been targeted by Islamists in several high-profile attacks in recent years.

The EU has grappled with heavy migration pressure for more than two decades. The involvement of European NATO countries in the collapse of Libya and Syria, and their backing of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia have driven millions of people toward the bloc.

You can share this story on social media:

Follow RT on