This is the gravest crisis for Western security since the end of World War Two, and a lasting one. As one expert puts it, “Trumpism will outlast his presidency”. But which nations are equipped to step to the fore as the US stands back?

At 09.00 one morning in February 1947, the UK ambassador in Washington, Lord Inverchapel, walked into the State Department to hand the US Secretary of State, George Marshall, two diplomatic messages printed on blue paper to emphasise their importance: one on Greece, the other on Turkey.

Exhausted, broke and heavily in debt to the United States, Britain told the US that it could no longer continue its support for the Greek government forces that were fighting an armed Communist insurgency. Britain had already announced plans to pull out of Palestine and India and to wind down its presence in Egypt.

The United States saw immediately that there was now a real danger that Greece would fall to the Communists and, by extension, to Soviet control. And if Greece went, the United States feared that Turkey could be next, giving Moscow control of the Eastern Mediterranean including, potentially, the Suez Canal, a vital global trade route.

Almost overnight, the United States stepped into the vacuum left by the departing British.

“It must be a policy of the United States,” President Harry Truman announced, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”

It was the start of what became known as the Truman Doctrine. At its heart was the idea that helping to defend democracy abroad was vital to the United States’ national interests.

There followed two major US initiatives: the Marshall Plan, a massive package of assistance to rebuild the shattered economies of Europe, and the creation of Nato in 1949, which was designed to defend democracies from a Soviet Union that had now extended its control over the eastern part of Europe.

It is easy to see this as the moment that leadership of the western world passed from Britain to the United States. More accurately it is the moment that revealed that it already had.

The United States, traditionally isolationist and safely sheltered by two vast oceans, had emerged from World War Two as the leader of the free world. As America projected its power around the globe, it spent the post-war decades remaking much of the world in its own image.

The baby boomer generation grew up in a world that looked, sounded and behaved more like the United States than ever before. And it became the western world’s cultural, economic and military hegemon.

Yet the fundamental assumptions on which the United States has based its geostrategic ambitions now look set to change.

Donald Trump is the first US President since World War Two to challenge the role that his country set for itself many decades ago. And he is doing this in such a way that, to many, the old world order appears to be over – and the new world order has yet to take shape.

The question is, which nations will step forward? And, with the security of Europe under greater strain than at any time almost in living memory, can its leaders, who are currently scrabbling around, find an adequate response?

President Trump’s critique of the post-1945 international order dates back decades. Nearly 40 years ago he took out full-page advertisements in three US newspapers to criticise the United States’ commitment to the defence of the world’s democracies.

“For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States,” he wrote in 1987. “Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests?

“The world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

It’s a position he has repeated since his second inauguration.

And the fury felt by some in his administration for what they perceive as European reliance on the United States was apparently shown in the leaked messages about air strikes on Houthis in Yemen that emerged this week.

In the messages, an account named Vice-President JD Vance wrote that European countries might benefit from the strikes. It said: “I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

Another account, identified as Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Trump’s own position appears to go beyond criticising those he says are taking advantage of the United State’s generosity. At the start of his second presidency, he seemed to embrace Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling Russia that Ukraine would not be granted Nato membership and that it should not expect to get back the territory it has lost to Russia.

Many saw this as giving away two major bargaining chips before talks had even started. He apparently asked Russia for nothing in return.

On the flipside, certain Trump supporters see in Putin a strong leader who embodies many of the conservative values they themselves share.

To some, Putin is an ally in a “war on woke”.

The United States’ foreign policy is now driven, in part at least, by the imperatives of its culture wars. The security of Europe has become entangled in the battle between two polarised and mutually antagonistic visions of what the United States stands for.

Some think the division is about more than Trump’s particular views and that Europe can not just sit tight waiting for his term in office to end.

“The US is becoming divorced from European values,” argues Ed Arnold, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. “That’s difficult [for Europeans] to swallow because it means that it’s structural, cultural and potentially long-term. “

“I think the current trajectory of the US will outlast Trump, as a person. I think Trumpism will outlast his presidency.”

The Trump White House has said it will no longer be the primary guarantor of European security, and that European nations should be responsible for their own defence and pay for it.

“If [Nato countries] don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them,” the president said earlier this month.

For almost 80 years, the cornerstone of European security has been embedded in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one member state of the alliance is an attack on all.

In Downing Street last month, just before his visit to the White House, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told me during an interview that he was satisfied that the United States remained the leading member of Nato and that Trump personally remained committed to Article 5.

Others are less sure.

Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary in the last Conservative government, told me earlier this month: “I think Article 5 is on life support.

“If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn’t step up to the plate, invest a lot on defence and take it seriously, it’s potentially the end of the Nato that we know and it’ll be the end of Article 5.

“Right now, I wouldn’t bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn’t take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue.”

According to polling by the French company Institut Elabe, nearly three quarters of French people now think that the United States is not an ally of France. A majority in Britain and a very large majority in Denmark, both historically pro-American countries, now have unfavourable views of the United States as well.

“The damage Trump has done to Nato is probably irreparable,” argues Robert Kagan, a conservative commentator, author and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC who has been a long time critic of Trump.

“The alliance relied on an American guarantee that is no longer reliable, to say the least”.

And yet Trump is by no means the first US president to tell Europe to get its defence spending in order. In 2016 Barack Obama urged Nato allies to increase theirs, saying: “Europe has sometimes been complacent about its own defence.”

All of this is great news for Putin. “The entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes,” he said last year. “Europe is being marginalised in global economic development, plunged into the chaos of challenges such as migration, and losing international agency and cultural identity.”

In early March, three days after Volodymyr Zelensky’s disastrous meeting with Trump and Vance in the White House, a Kremlin spokesman declared “the fragmentation of the West has begun”.

“Look at Russia’s objectives in Europe,” says Armida van Rij, head of the Europe programme at Chatham House. “Its objectives are to destabilise Europe. It is to weaken Nato, and get the Americans to withdraw their troops from here.

“And at the moment you could go ‘tick, tick and almost tick’. Because it is destabilising Europe. It is weakening Nato. It hasn’t gone as far as to get the US to withdraw troops from Europe, but in a few months time, who knows where we’ll be?”

One of the great challenges Europe, in particular, faces from here is the question of how to arm itself adequately. Eighty years of reliance on the might of the United States has left many European democracies exposed.

Britain, for example, has cut military spending by nearly 70% since the height of the Cold War. (At the end of the Cold War, in the early 1990s, Europe allowed itself a peace dividend and began a decades-long process of reducing defence spending.)

“We had a big budget [during the Cold War] and we took a peace dividend,” says Wallace. “Now, you could argue that that was warranted.

“The problem is we went from a peace dividend to corporate raiding. [Defence] just became the go-to department to take money from. And that is where we just forgot the lessons of our history.”

The prime minister told parliament last month that Britain would increase defence spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027. But is that enough?

“It isn’t enough just to stand still,” argues Wallace. “It wouldn’t be enough to fix the things we need to make ourselves more deployable, and to plug the gaps if the Americans left.”

Then there is the wider question of military recruitment. “The West is in freefall in its military recruiting, it’s not just Britain,” argues Wallace.

“At the moment, young people aren’t joining the military. And that’s a problem.”

But Germany’s new Chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has said Europe must make itself independent of the United States. And “Europeanising” NATO will require the build up of an indigenous European military-industrial complex capable of delivering capabilities that currently only the United States has.

Others share the view that Europe must become more self reliant militarily – but some are concerned that not all of Europe is on board with this.

“Where we are at the moment is that the East Europeans by and large, don’t need to get the memo,” says Ian Bond, deputy director, Centre for European Reform. “The further west you go, the more problematic it becomes until you get to Spain and Italy.”

Mr Arnold agrees: “The view in Europe now is this isn’t really a debate anymore, it’s a debate of how we do it and maybe how quickly we do it, but we need to do this now.”

There is a short list of “very important things” that only the United States currently provides, according to historian Timothy Garton Ash.

“These are the so-called strategic enablers,” he says. “The satellites, the intelligence, the Patriot air defence batteries, which are the only ones that can take down Russian ballistic missiles. And within three to five years we [countries other than the US] should aim to have our own version of these.

“And in this process of transition, from the American-led Nato [the idea is] you will have a Nato that is so Europeanised that its forces, together with national forces and EU capacities, are capable of defending Europe – even if an American president says ‘leave us out of this’.”

The question is how to achieve this.

Ms van Rij stresses that, in her view, Europe does need to build a Europe-owned European defence industrial base – but she foresees difficulties.

“What’s really difficult are the divisions within Europe on how to actually do this and whether to actually do this.”

The European Commission and experts have been trying to figure out how this defence may work for several decades. “It has traditionally been very difficult because of vested national interests… So this is not going to be easy.”

In the meantime, Trump appears ready to turn the page on the post-Cold War rules-based international order of sovereign states that are free to choose their own destinies and alliances.

What he seems to share with Vladimir Putin is a desire for a world in which the major powers, unconstrained by internationally agreed laws, are free to impose their will on smaller, weaker nations, as Russia has traditionally done in both its Tsarist and Soviet Empires. That would mean a return to the “spheres of interest” system that prevailed for 40 years after the Second World War.

We don’t know exactly what Donald Trump would do were a Nato country to be attacked. But the point is that the guarantee of US help can no longer be taken for granted. That means Europe has to react. Its challenge appears to be to stay united, finally make good on funding its own defence, and avoid being drawn into the “sphere of influence” of any of the big powers.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

India’s Supreme Court has put on hold a recent high court court which said that “grabbing [the] breasts” of a girl and breaking off the drawstrings of her lower garment could not be considered an attempt to rape.

The Allahabad high court had ruled last week that the offence could only be described as “aggravated sexual assault”, which involves a lesser punishment.

The top court judges said some of the comments in the high court order depicted “a total lack of sensitivity” on the part of the judge who wrote it.

The high court ruling led to outrage in India.

On Wednesday, the two-judge Supreme Court bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine described the 17 March order as “shocking”, especially since it was not delivered “on the spur of the moment” but had been well thought through after being reserved for four months.

The top court has now sent notices to India’s federal authorities and state government in Uttar Pradesh, where the court in Allahabad (now called Prayagraj) is located.

According to the prosecution, the case involves an 11-year-old girl whose mother has alleged that the two accused offered a lift to her daughter on their motorbike, promising to drop her home.

She sent the child with the men who were from the same village and known to them.

“The accused persons stopped their motorcycle on the way to the village and started grabbing her breasts,” the high court order said, adding that one of the men dragged her beneath a culvert and “broke her pyjama [lower garment] string”.

She was rescued by some villagers who were passing by and were alerted by her cries for help, forcing her attackers to flee.

The accused have denied the allegations against them.

The high court ruling was based on the argument that “attempt to rape” was different from “preparation”, legal website Live Law reported, quoting from the high court order.

“The prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” the order said.

The controversial ruling led to outrage in the country with many describing the judgement as “atrocious”.

Senior lawyer Indira Jaising told a TV channel that what happened with the child “goes beyond preparation” and in legal terms “it is attempt to commit rape”.

“How do you prove intent? It is proved by actions that precede the actual act of rape,” she said, adding that the fact that the girl was dragged to a secluded place meant it had gone beyond preparation.

India’s Women and Child Welfare Minister Annapurna Devi told news agency Press Trust of India that “the high court ruling has no place in a civilised society and that it will have an adverse impact on society”.

Denmark has welcomed changes to a Greenland trip by US Vice-President JD Vance and his wife Usha, which has been reduced to a visit of just a US space base.

Earlier this week, it was announced that Usha Vance would spend several days in Greenland, visiting the capital Nuuk and attending cultural events like a popular annual dogsled race.

The White House said on Tuesday that JD Vance would join his wife in Greenland but that the couple would only spend a day there visiting the US Pituffik Space Base, on the north-western coast.

US President Donald Trump has continued his threats of taking over Greenland, a Danish semi-autonomous territory, saying on Wednesday: “We’re going to have to have it”.

“We need Greenland for international safety and security,” Trump added.

Although JD Vance will become the highest-ranking US official to visit Greenland, a visit to a US base is less controversial than the original plan for his wife’s visit, which Greenland’s acting head of government Mute Egede called a “provocation”.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said on Wednesday that the decision was “very positive” and that Denmark had “nothing against” the Americans visiting their own base.

Rasmussen also said it was a “masterful spin in many ways, to make [the US] look like they’re escalating when they’re actually deescalating.”

The revised programme will also likely reduce the risk of the Vances being met with protests by local residents.

In recent weeks hundreds of people have taken part in demonstrations against the US, with some holding placards reading “Respect international agreements” and “Yankee go home”.

Earlier in March, Greenland’s leading political parties issued a joint statement to condemn Trump’s “unacceptable behaviour”.

Outgoing Prime Minister Mute B Egede wrote on Facebook that his country would “never be the USA and we Greenlanders will never be Americans… Don’t keep treating us with disrespect. Enough is enough.”

On Wednesday morning, Greenland media reported that several armoured cars which had arrived on the island in preparation for Usha Vance’s visit were being loaded back on an American military plane.

Greenland – the world’s biggest island, situated between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans – has been controlled by Denmark, nearly 3,000km (1,860 miles) away, for about 300 years.

It governs its own domestic affairs, but decisions on foreign and defence policy are made in Copenhagen. The US has long held a security interest and a military presence there since World War Two.

The Pituffik Space Base, located in the north-west of Greenland, supports missile warning, air defence and space surveillance missions.

In a video posted on social media platform X on Tuesday, Vance said there was a lot of excitement around his wife’s trip to Greenland. He is joining her because he “didn’t want her to have all that fun by herself”.

He said the visit to the military installation was to check on the island’s security, as “a lot of other countries have threatened Greenland, have threatened to use its territories and its waterways to threaten the United States, to threaten Canada, and of course, to threaten the people of Greenland”.

He added that the Trump administration wanted to “reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland”, and that the United States and Denmark have ignored it for “far too long”.

It is unclear if Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz is still scheduled to visit. The BBC has reached out to the White House for confirmation.

Dr Dwayne Ryan Menezes, founder and managing director of Polar Research and Policy Initiative think tank, based in London, criticised the visit.

He said it was “highly unusual” that a high-level delegation of US officials are visiting Greenland without being invited, especially after a national election in the country, where the parties are still in talks to form the next government.

The US’ interest in Greenland’s security, given its strategic importance, makes sense, he said. But he added that it is “inexplicable” for Washington DC to have taken such an aggressive approach, especially in light of Trump’s comments about acquiring the territory.

“Disrespecting the people of Greenland by saying the US will acquire it ‘one way or the other’ is unhelpful and counter-productive as a tactic,” he added.

According to recent polls, almost 80% of Greenlanders back independence from Denmark. But an opinion survey in January suggested an even greater number rejected the idea of becoming part of the US.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

At least 24 people have been killed as multiple wildfires continue to ravage South Korea’s south-east region.

Most of the victims are in their 60s and 70s, authorities say, adding that some 26 people are injured – with 12 in critical condition. More than 23,000 people have been forced to flee their homes.

The “unprecedented” crisis is “rewriting the record books for the worst wildfires in our nation’s history”, acting president Han Duck-soo has said.

The fires gutted a 1,300-year-old temple in Uiseong city, where many cultural relics were removed and transported to safer ground.

The fires started in Sancheong county on Friday and later spread to Uiseong county.

Fuelled by strong and dry winds, they spread to the neighbouring counties of Gyeongbuk, Uiseong, Andong, Cheongsong, Yeongyang and Sancheong.

On Tuesday, the national fire agency raised the crisis to the highest fire response level.

On Wednesday, a firefighting helicopter crashed in the mountains of Uiseong, killing the pilot. Officials are investigating the cause.

Thousands of firefighters and about 5,000 military personnel have been deployed to contain the flames, as well as helicopters from the US military stationed in Korea.

Wildfires are relatively uncommon in South Korea. The current fires are already the deadliest in its history.

About 17,000 hectares (42,000 acres) of forest have also been destroyed, making the fires the third largest in South Korea’s history in terms of area.

One resident of a village in Andong told BBC Korean: “Our house has completely burned down. It was almost completely collapsed.”

Elsewhere in Andong, people sheltering at an elementary school were told to leave quickly as the fire was spread by gusty winds.

A 30-year-old man living in Uiseong said: “Both the upstairs and next door houses were burned down. This area is full of grandparents. They have lived here their whole lives, and when their houses burn down, they have nowhere to go.”

In the city of Uiseong, the fire destroyed the Gounsa temple – one of the largest temples in the province built in 618 AD.

A 68-year-old monk said he was “devastated” when he heard that about the destruction of the Gounsa temple. “We will do our best to restore the function of the temple,” he told AFP news agency.

A Buddhist architectural structure deemed a national treasure from the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910) was also destroyed, forestry authorities confirmed.

In Andong, truck driver Lee Seung-joo said he saw the mountains burn as he drove by. “It was like the apocalypse,” the 39-year-old said, according to AFP.

Acting president Han said strong winds were still hampering firefighting and rescue efforts.

“We were desperately hoping for rain today or tomorrow to help extinguish the flames,” Han added.

No rain was forecast for the region on Wednesday and only a small amount – five to 10mm – expected on Thursday, according to the Korea Meteorological Administration.

South Korea has been experiencing drier than normal conditions with less rainfall than average. There have already been 244 wildfires this year – 2.4 times more than the same period last year.

The government also promised to strengthen enforcement against illegal burning -one of the main causes of wildfires – and crack down on individual carelessness.

“It took a huge amount of courage to speak out,” NewJeans have told the BBC in their first interview since a court blocked their attempt to leave their record label, in a case that has rocked the K-pop industry.

“This fight is necessary. Although it will be extremely difficult and arduous, we will keep doing what we have done so far and speak up,” said Haerin, one of the members of the five-piece.

“We thought it was important to tell the world about what we’ve been through. All the choices we’ve made so far have been the best choices we could have made.”

NewJeans looked invincible in the charts when they launched what was an unusual rebellion in the high-pressure, tightly-controlled world of K-pop. Hanni, Hyein, Haerin, Danielle and Minji stunned South Korea and fans everywhere with their decision in November to split from Ador, the label that launched them.

They alleged mistreatment, workplace harassment and an attempt to “undermine their careers”, which Ador denies. It sued to enforce their seven-year contract, which is set to expire in 2029, and sought an injunction against any commercial activities by the group.

On Friday, a South Korean court granted it, ordering NewJeans to stop all “independent” activities, including song releases and advertising deals, while the case was still under way. NewJeans has since challenged the injunction in court.

Friday’s ruling was a “shock”, the group told the BBC.

“Some people think that we’re famous enough to do whatever we want and say whatever we please. But the truth is, it’s not like that at all,” Hyein said. “We held it in for a long time, and only now have we finally spoken up about what we think, what we feel and the unfairness we’ve experienced.”

The K-pop industry has repeatedly come under fire for the pressure it puts on its stars not only to perform and succeed, but to appear perfect. But rarely do conflicts spill into the public, exposing stars’ grievances and rifts with their labels.

NewJeans’ dramatic announcement last year followed a long and public spat with Ador and its parent company, Hybe – South Korea’s biggest music label, whose client list includes K-pop royalty such as BTS and Seventeen.

Ador told the BBC in a statement that the contract with NewJeans still stands, adding that “most of their claims have risen from misunderstandings”. The court said that NewJeans did not “sufficiently prove” that Ador had violated the contract, adding that the label had upheld “most of its duties, including payment”.

The girls were rehearsing for a performance in Hong Kong, when news of the ruling dropped. They found out when Minji got a worried message from her mother: “She asked me, ‘are you okay?’ And I was like ‘what happened?'”

“I was stunned,” Minji says. So were the others when she told them. “At first I thought I didn’t hear her properly,” Danielle says. “We were all kind of in shock.”

This was their second of two interviews with the BBC in as many weeks. In the first interview, which happened before the ruling, the group had been excited to release their new single, Pit Stop – their first since they announced their break from Ador and renamed themselves NJZ.

They spoke about how they coped with a difficult period, including finding comfort in cooking. “I’m not really good at it but it’s kind of healing,” Minji had said, before promising to cook an “amazing dinner” for the group.

In the second interview, which was 24 hours after the ruling, they seemed disheartened and unsettled, less sure of what was to come. “If we knew we were gonna go through this, maybe we would have chosen…” Hanni trailed off as she teared up.

Seconds later, she continued: “Even if we do everything we can and it doesn’t work out the way we hope it does, then we’ll just have to leave it to time. I’m sure time would figure it out for us.”

The following night, they took to the stage in Hong Kong and, despite the court order, performed Pit Stop under their new name. But the evening, which they had pitched to fans as a fresh start, ended in tears as they told the crowd they were going on a hiatus.

“It wasn’t any easy decision to make,” Hyein said on stage, as each of them took turns to address their fans. “But at the moment for us, it’s about protecting ourselves, so that we can come back stronger.”

Just three years into their debut, the future of the young stars – they are aged between 16 and 20 – is now in question.

But they tell the BBC that this is not the end of the road for them as they “find more ways” forward. With the legal battle expected to last for months, if not years, Minji says that gives them time to plan what they want to do next.

Ever since they debuted in July 2022, NewJeans have delivered remarkable success with each new release – OMG, Ditto, Super Shy, Attention. A year on, they were the eighth biggest-selling act in the world.

Critics called them a “game-changer” as their uniquely playful blend of 1990s R&B and sugar-coated pop melodies broke through a K-pop market dominated by electronic beats. And their breezy dance moves stood out among super-synchronised videos.

They were still on the rise when Min Hee-jin – Ador’s former boss and their long-time mentor, who launched them – began trading accusations publicly with Hybe. The music label had created Ador, granting Min a minority shareholding and further stock options, before she was removed from her role last August.

Hybe was now accusing her of plotting Ador’s takeover and Min, in an emotional press conference, accused them of undermining NewJeans by launching another girl group with a similar style. The fight got uglier and Min left the company, alleging she was forced out.

That’s when NewJeans broke their silence – they demanded Min’s return in two weeks in a livestream.

They were not able to contact her for a while, Danielle told the BBC in the first interview: “We didn’t know what was happening and we didn’t have a way to support her. That itself was a hard thing because she was always there for us and… in a way a person to look up to.”

Ador had said Min could not return as CEO, but could continue as an internal director and NewJeans’ producer. When Min didn’t return, NewJeans announced that they were leaving Ador and accused the label of not meeting other demands: an apology for alleged bullying and actions against what they claimed were controversial internal reports.

Ador, which denies all these allegations, appears to blame Min for their dispute with NewJeans. “The core of this issue lies in the label’s ex-management providing distorted explanations to their artists, leading to misunderstandings. They can be fully addressed and resolved upon the members’ return to the label,” Ador told the BBC in a statement.

In the months since, Hanni, a Vietnamese-Australian, testified in tears to South Korean lawmakers in an inquiry into workplace harassment. “I came to the realisation that this wasn’t just a feeling. I was honestly convinced that the company hated us,” she told them, after describing several incidents where she said the group felt undermined and bullied.

NewJeans’ case was dismissed because the labour ministry said K-pop stars did not qualify as workers and were not entitled to the same rights.

Then in December, NewJeans took another rare step by supporting fans who were calling for the impeachment of South Korea’s disgraced president, Yoon Suk Yeol who had briefly imposed martial law – the group provided free food and drinks to fans who showed up at the huge protest rallies.

With each round of publicity, there was also criticism, much of it involving their age. Some said they had “crossed the line”, while others called them “stupid and reckless,” and even “ungrateful” for picking a fight with Ador. Others questioned if they were making their own decisions.

Being young doesn’t mean they should be taken less seriously, the group says. “That’s an easy way to devalue the fact that we are actually trying to do something,” Hanni says. “The decisions we’ve made in the past year have been decided through a very, very large amount of discussion between us.”

As the dispute has dragged on, the critics have got louder, dubbing the girls as troublemakers rather than game-changers. Following the ruling, which their critics welcomed, NewJeans say they have been “very aware of the intense scrutiny and judgment” ever since they held that press conference last year.

“There hasn’t been a single moment when we’ve expressed our opinions without worry or tension,” Minji says. “We’ve thought more than anyone else about how much responsibility each of our actions carries, and we’re currently bearing that responsibility ourselves.”

It’s not clear how long their hiatus will last. Ador says it hopes to meet the group soon to discuss the future, but NewJeans insist they don’t feel protected enough to go back.

Their lawsuit with Ador will return to the headlines next week when the hearings begin – and so will all five of them.

The one thing that seems constant is their determination to get through this together.

Two weeks ago, Hanni had said: “We’ve always said to each other, if one person doesn’t want to do it, then we’re not going to do it. It has to be all all five of us that agrees to do it. That’s how we’ve gotten here and that’s how we are going to get to the end.”

On Saturday, she repeated: “We’re gonna get through it.”

South Korean governments committed numerous human rights violations over decades in a controversial programme that sent at least 170,000 children and babies abroad for adoption, a landmark inquiry has found.

It said the government’s lack of oversight enabled the “mass exportation of children” by private agencies that were driven by profit, and found examples of fraud, falsified records and coercion.

Since the 1950s, South Korea has sent more children abroad for adoption than any other country, with most sent to Western countries.

South Korea has sinced moved to tighten its adoption processes, but some adoptees and their biological parents say they are still haunted by what they went through. The BBC spoke to one woman who claimed her adoptive parents “took better care of the dog than they ever did of me”.

“This is a shameful part of our history,” said Park Sun-young, the chairperson of the commission, at a press briefing.

“While many adoptees were fortunate to grow up in loving families, others suffered great hardship and trauma due to flawed adoption processes. Even today, many continue to face challenges.”

The report was released on Wednesday by the independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission following an investigation that began in 2022.

Since then, 367 adoptees – all of which were sent overseas between 1964 and 1999 – had filed petitions alleging fradulent practices in their adoption process.

Some 100 petitions have been analysed so far, of whom 56 adoptees were recognised as victims of human rights violations. The commission is still investigating other cases, with the inquiry set to end in May.

In the aftermath of the Korean war, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and few families were keen on adopting children.

South Korea’s government then began a transnational adoption programme handled by private agencies, which were given significant powers through special adoption laws.

But there was a “systemic failure in oversight and management”, which led to numerous lapses committed by these agencies, according to the report.

The report noted that foreign agencies had demanded a set number of children every month and Korean agencies complied, “facilitating large-scale intercountry adoptions with minimal procedural oversight”.

With no government regulation on fees, the Korean agencies charged large amounts and demanded “donations”, which turned adoptions into “a profit-driven industry”, according to the report.

Other lapses include adoptions conducted without proper consent from birth mothers and inadequate screening of adoptive parents.

The agencies also fabricated reports that made children appear as if they were abandoned and put up for adoption; and intentionally gave children wrong identities.

Because many adoptees had false identities listed in their paperwork, they now struggle to obtain information about their birth families and are left with inadequate legal protection, the report noted.

The commission has recommended the government deliver an official apology, and to comply with international standards on transnational adoptions.

South Korea has moved to tighten its adoption processes in recent years. In 2023, it passed a law ensuring that all overseas adoptions would be handled by a government ministry instead of private agencies, which is due to come into effect by July.

The South Korean government has yet to respond to Wednesday’s report.

Inger-Tone Ueland Shin, 60, was one of the petitioners whose cases were investigated by the commission. She was adopted by a Norwegian couple when she was 13 – and discovered later on that her adoption was illegal.

The couple, who were in their 50s at the time, had initially applied to adopt but were rejected by Norwegian authorities as they were too old.

They then travelled to South Korea and visited an orphanage, where they selected Inger-Tone and took her with them to Norway.

The couple only submitted an adoption application to Norwegian authorities years later. The authorities approved it, despite acknowledging the illegality of Inger-Tone’s situation, because they determined that by then she had “no connection to Korea anymore”.

Inger-Tone told the BBC she had great difficulty adjusting to life in Norway, and also alleged her adoptive father sexually abused her.

“They took better care of the dog than they ever did of me,” she said. “It was so painful. I wasn’t able to talk or express myself, other than crying at night”.

In 2022, she successfully sued her local government in Norway and was awarded damages. She also received her local government’s acknowledgment that it was liable for “failing to supervise” her adoptive home.

Her adoptive parents have since died.

“They have never spent time in prison for what they’ve done to me. They criminally picked up a child outside of the country… nobody has taken responsibility for what they did to me,” she said.

While she is satisfied with the results of the commission’s investigation, she said: “I have been living in the wrong country and I have had a painful and miserable life.”

“I don’t wish this for anyone and I sincerely hope they do not adopt any more children out of Korea.”

Russia has said some Western sanctions must be lifted before it begins a maritime ceasefire with Ukraine.

Within hours of the US announcing the two sides had agreed to halt strikes in the Black Sea in separate deals, the Kremlin said it would only take place once sanctions on a number of Russian banks were lifted.

The demands include revoking sanctions on the state agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank and restoring the firms’ access to the Swift international payment system.

Overnight, Moscow launched a drone attack on the port city of Mykolaiv, Ukrainian officials said, with President Volodymyr Zelensky saying the strikes were “a clear signal” Russia did not want peace.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU and its allies suspended access to Swift for a number of Russian financial institutions.

The aim was for Russian companies to lose access to the normal smooth and instant transactions provided by Swift, disrupting payments for its valuable energy and agricultural exports.

Reversing that decision would need EU approval, a step that would appear uncertain in light of recent European statements of support for Kyiv.

A European Commission spokesperson said the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine would be one of the main conditions to lift or amend any sanctions.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump said that Russia could be trying to delay ending the war.

“I think that Russia wants to see an end to it, but it could be they’re dragging their feet. I’ve done it over the years,” he said in an interview with Newsmax.

The maritime ceasefire was announced by the US after three days of peace talks in Saudi Arabia.

However Kyiv and Moscow later released conflicting statements on the details of the deal, including when and how it would start.

Zelensky said he believed the deal did not require sanctions relief to come into force and would take effect immediately.

He called the Kremlin’s statement an attempt to “manipulate” the deals.

The Black Sea has not been a central focus of fighting for some time.

In the first stages of the war, Ukraine successfully targeted Russia’s fleet in its Crimean home ports and as of last summer, Ukraine said it had destroyed 28 Russian vessels.

With what was left of the Russian fleet fleeing south and east to Russian and Abkhazian ports, Ukraine has been successfully exporting goods – with grain exports at near pre-war levels – via shipping which hugged the western seaboard of the Black Sea.

So any maritime ceasefire – if it comes into force – is unlikely to reshape the balance of the war that is largely being fought on the ground.

But Dr Jenny Mathers, a senior professor of international politics at Aberystwyth University and expert on Russian politics, said the maritime ceasefire would provide Russia with a “big advantage” as it was currently struggling to export its agricultural produce.

“Ukraine has managed to get out a lot of its agricultural produce through the Black Sea, and it’s managed to successfully target Russian shipping, so Russia doesn’t use the Black Sea at the moment,” Dr Mathers said.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative was struck in 2022, allowing safe passage of commercial ships travelling to and from Ukraine, with UN officials helping Russia get its food and fertiliser exports to foreign markets in return.

Russia withdrew from the agreement in summer 2023, arguing that financial sanctions were hindering its exports, and said it would view any vessel bound for Ukraine as a potential military target.

• Why did Putin’s Russia invade Ukraine?
• Why Trump is struggling to secure fast ceasefire in Ukraine

• ‘My husband is a fighter pilot in Ukraine. Here’s how I really feel about a ceasefire’

Where a maritime ceasefire could make a difference is by protecting Ukrainian ports from Russian air strikes.

“For us, a ceasefire is primarily a cessation of shelling of civilian port infrastructure,” said Dmytro Pletenchuk, the Ukrainian navy spokesperson.

“As of now, we’re in control of the situation at sea; in the Black Sea, in the Azov Sea, and in the waters surrounding temporarily occupied Crimea. That’s why for us, the Ukrainian navy, this situation would not really change anything.”

After announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Washington said all parties would continue working towards a “durable and lasting peace”, adding that the agreement would reopen an important trade route.

Ukraine and Russia also committed to “develop measures” to implement a previously agreed ban on attacking each other’s energy infrastructure, the White House said.

The Black Sea is located south of Ukraine and to the west of Russia, and is also bordered by Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia.

It is also bordered by parts of Russian-occupied Ukraine – including Crimea.

The Duke of Sussex has resigned from a charity he set up after a row between the trustees and the chair of its board.

Prince Harry co-founded Sentebale in 2006 in honour of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, to help people in southern Africa living with HIV and Aids.

He stepped down with his co-founder, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, and the board of trustees because its relationship with chairwoman Dr Sophie Chandauka “broke down beyond repair” after she was asked to resign and took legal action.

Dr Chandauka said she reported the trustees to the UK Charity Commission and had “blown the whistle” about issues including abuse of power, bullying, sexism and racism.

The Charity Commission said it was “aware of concerns about the governance” of Sentebale and is looking into them.

In a joint statement, the duke and Prince Seeiso said they were resigning from their roles with “heavy hearts” and in “solidarity with the board of trustees”.

“It is devastating that the relationship between the charity’s trustees and the chair of the board broke down beyond repair, creating an untenable situation,” they said.

They said the trustees “acted in the best interest of the charity” by asking Dr Chandauka to step down, but that her decision to take legal action to retain her position was “further underscoring the broken relationship”.

They added they would be sharing their concerns with the Charity Commission “as to how this came about”.

Former trustees Timothy Boucher, Mark Dyer, Audrey Kgosidintsi, Dr Kelello Lerotholi and Damian West described their decision as “nothing short of devastating” for all of them.

They said they had lost trust and confidence in the chairwoman but her legal action to block them from removing her meant they had no other option than to resign.

They said this was in the “best interest of the charity”, as it could not take on the “legal and financial burden” of the lawsuit.

In response, Dr Chandauka said her work at Sentebale had been “guided by the principles of fairness and equitable treatment for all”.

“There are people in this world who behave as though they are above the law and mistreat people, and then play the victim card and use the very press they disdain to harm people who have the courage to challenge their conduct,” she said.

This, she said, was the “story of a woman who dared to blow the whistle about issues of poor governance, weak executive management, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, misogyny, misogynoir [discrimination against black women] – and the coverup that ensued”.

Her work with the charity was “not a vanity project from which I can resign when I am called to account”, she added.

She said the High Court had accepted her application to hear her case.

The trustees and princes have not responded directly to her allegations.

Dr Chandauka, a corporate finance lawyer, had previously served on Sentebale’s board between 2009 and 2015 before becoming chairwoman, according to the charity’s website.

She has worked for companies such as Morgan Stanley, Meta and Virgin Money, and was appointed an MBE for her contributions to diversity in business in 2021.

The charity itself said it had “not received resignations from either Royal Patron”, but it did confirm a “restructuring” of its board on Tuesday.

It said it was looking to bring in more experts “with the capabilities and networks to accelerate Sentebale’s transformation agenda”.

The charity added that it had announced plans last April to move from being a development organisation addressing the impact of HIV and Aids on children and young people in Lesotho and Botswana to “one that is addressing issues of youth health, wealth and climate resilience in Southern Africa”.

“The recalibration of the board is, therefore, part of Sentebale’s ambitious transformation agenda,” the charity added.

The Charity Commission said it was “aware of concerns” over Sentebale’s governance, adding: “We are assessing the issues to determine the appropriate regulatory steps.”

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

It was Sunday, 19 January 2020.

All attempts to negotiate a new role for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex within the royal family had failed, and Harry and Meghan were about to head off to a new life in the United States.

Prince Harry made one final speech about how he was feeling.

He delivered it at a dinner for his beloved Sentebale charity.

This was a safe space for him. Amongst charity workers, donors and friends, he spoke of the love and happiness he had found with Meghan, of honouring his mother’s legacy, and described his “sadness” at leaving the UK.

“Together, you have given me an education about living, and this role has taught me more about what is right and just than I could ever have imagined,” he told dinner guests.

“We are taking a leap of faith, so thank you for giving me the courage to take this next step.”

Sentebale had been part of Prince Harry’s world for his entire adult life. It had ridden the storm of family fallout and leaving royal life behind.

He first visited Lesotho, the landlocked mountain kingdom in southern Africa, when he was 19, in 2004. He’d just left Eton and was on a gap year before his military training at Sandhurst.

It was a formative time for Harry.

What he saw during his gap year prompted him to set up the charity two years later.

It would support children who had lost parents to HIV and Aids.

And then there is the Diana factor. Sentebale means “forget-me-not” in Sesotho, the language of Lesotho.

Back at that Sentebale dinner in 2020, he told guests: “When I lost my mum… you took me under your wing. You looked out for me for so long.”

The connection to Diana, Princess of Wales, is an important personal part of the Sentebale story.

His joint founder, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, had also lost his mother. They were both motivated by a sense of loss. Remembering their mothers drove much of what they did over the past two decades.

Prince Seeiso became a personal friend of Harry. Seeiso was a guest at his wedding in Windsor in 2018. He’d also been at the wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales at Westminster Abbey seven years earlier.

This makes their joint decision to walk away from Sentebale all the more powerful.

Prince Harry’s move to the US has impacted his ability to be hands-on with some of his charity work. But his team in California say he remains a strong supporter of them all and plays an active part in what they do.

He last visited Lesotho in 2024 and, with Prince Seeiso, saw the latest work the charity was doing. His commitment to the charity would “never falter”, he said.

But, for now, Prince Harry has walked away in what has clearly been a catastrophic breakdown in the trustees’ relationship with the chair of the board.

There has been a personal fallout, a wrangle over the charity’s future direction, and broken relationships with damaging accusations being made.

Prince Harry has been here before.

Thousands of people in Turkey have turned out for a seventh night of protests which have so far seen more than 1,400 people detained, including students, journalists and lawyers.

The nightly unrest began last Wednesday when the city’s Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu – who is seen as the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s main political rival – was arrested on corruption charges.

Rights groups and the UN have condemned the arrests and the use of force by police on the protesters.

Imamoglu said the allegations against him were politically motivated, a claim the Turkish president has denied.

Speaking to a group of young people at a Ramadan fast-breaking meal in Ankara on Tuesday, President Erdogan urged patience and common sense amid what he described as “very sensitive days.”

He added that people who want “to turn this country into a place of chaos have nowhere to go”, and the path protesters have taken is “a dead end”.

On Tuesday evening, thousands of students from many universities in Istanbul met in Maçka Park and then marched towards Şişli.

Authorities in Istanbul banned protests and closed some roads “in order to maintain public order” and “prevent any provocative actions that may occur”.

As students marched through the Nisantasi district they chanted “government, resign!” and waved flags and banners as they were watched by a large deployment of riot police.

Many students had their faces covered with scarves or masks, and acknowledged they feared being identified by the police.

• Why are people protesting in Turkey?
• Turkey protests are about far more than fate of Istanbul’s mayor
• Erdogan: Turkey’s all-powerful leader of 20 years
• Who is Turkish opposition leader Ekrem Imamoglu?

Turkey’s main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), said that Tuesday’s rally outside Istanbul’s City Hall would be its last in a run of nightly gatherings – and that it is planning a rally in the city on Saturday.

“Are you ready for a big rally in a large square in Istanbul on Saturday?” Ozgur Ozel told crowds.

“To support Imamoglu, to object to his arrest, to object to the detention of each of our mayors. To demand transparent, open, live broadcast trials, to say that we have had enough and we want early elections.”

Since last Wednesday, Turkey’s interior minister said 1,418 protesters have been detained following the days of demonstrations that the government has deemed “illegal.”

Posting on social media Ali Yerlikaya wrote: “While there are currently 979 suspects in custody, 478 people will be brought to court today.

“No concessions will be made to those who attempt to terrorise the streets, to attack our national and moral values, and to our police officers.”

Elsewhere on Tuesday, seven journalists appeared in court including AFP news agency photographer Yasin Akgül who had been covering the demonstrations.

AFP chairman Fabrice Fries has written a letter addressed to the Turkish presidency urging Erdogan to “intervene” in Akgul’s imprisonment which he described as “unacceptable”.

“Yasin Akgül was not part of the protest,” Fries said. “As a journalist, he was covering one of the many demonstrations that have been organized in the country since Wednesday 19 March.

“He has taken exactly 187 photographs since the start of the protests, each one a witness to his work as a journalist.”

In Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio voiced “concerns” following a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, the US State Department said in a statement.

Imamoglu was one of more than 100 people detained last week as part of an investigation. Others arrested included politicians, journalists and businessmen.

His arrest does not prevent his candidacy or election as president, but he will not be able to run if he is convicted of any of the charges against him.

The opposition mayor is seen as one of the most formidable rivals of Erdogan, who has held office in Turkey for 22 years as both prime minister and president.

Erdogan’s term in office is due to expire in 2028, and under the current rules, he cannot stand again – but he could call an early election or try to change the constitution to allow him to remain in power for longer.

Turkey’s Ministry of Justice has criticised those connecting Erdogan to the arrests, and insisted on its judicial independence.

In an effort to quell rising tensions in its troubled Tigray region, Ethiopia’s prime minister has said he will appoint a new leader in the area.

Tigray’s interim President Getachew Reda fled to the capital, Addis Ababa, earlier this month following a power struggle in the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which runs the region.

In a novel approach, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed asked Tigrayans to suggest who the region’s new leader should be via email.

The infighting has sparked fears that Tigray could return to the civil war that claimed an estimated half a million lives.

Prime Minister Abiy on Wednesday said Tigray’s leadership had failed to create the conditions for elections following the 2020-22 civil war which saw the TPLF battle Ethiopia’s federal government.

A peace deal stopped the gruelling conflict and led to the formation of an interim administration, which was tasked with running the region until elections were held.

Getachew was appointed to run the administration as part of the agreement, taking over from former leader Debretsion Gebremichael.

But two weeks ago, Debretsion led a TPLF faction which took control of the Tigray administration.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Prime Minister Abiy said that “taking into account the realities on the ground” it was “necessary to appoint a new president of the interim administration”.

Abiy invited the people of Tigray to suggest candidates for the position via email.

He also said the interim administration’s two-year mandate would be extended by another year.

Tigray has continued to face challenges since the peace deal was signed, including delays in demobilising TPLF forces and vast humanitarian needs.

Several countries including the US, UK and the European Union have warned about the recent power struggle, saying there must be “no return to violence”.

Amid these concerns, Abiy has acknowledged that the Ethiopian army is currently overstretched, given ongoing conflicts in the Oromia and Amhara regions. “My answer is peace,” he told the Ethiopian parliament last week.

The conflict in Tigray killed an estimated 500,000 people. All parties – including neighbouring country Eritrea, which backed the government – were accused of gross abuses, such as the mass killing of civilians and widespread sexual violence.

After three days of talks in Saudi Arabia, at last some progress.

Two separate texts outlining agreements between the US and Russia, and the US and Ukraine.

There were some differences but much was the same. All sides agreed “to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea”.

They also agreed “to develop measures for implementing… the agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine”.

President Zelensky regretted there was no explicit ban on attacks on civilian infrastructure but sounded broadly content.

He told reporters Ukraine would implement the Black Sea and energy ceasefires immediately.

He also got a nod to his agenda with the US saying that it would “remain committed to helping achieve the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children”.

But then came a third document, issued by the Kremlin, which muddied the waters.

It imposed conditions that did not appear in the original agreement between the US and Russia.

It said the Black Sea ceasefire would come into force only when sanctions were lifted on Russian banks, insurers, companies, ports and ships that would allow it to export more agriculture and fertiliser goods.

In other words, they saw this deal not just as a revival of the old Black Sea Grain Initiative they pulled out of in 2023, but also an opportunity to roll back a significant number of economic sanctions.

However, doing this may take some time and thus delay any maritime ceasefire.

It also may not entirely be in the gift of the US to make all the changes Russia requested.

For example, any return to the SWIFT financial messaging system would require EU approval.

The Kremlin also said the 30-day pause on energy strikes would be back-dated to start on 18 March and could be suspended if one side violated the deal.

In other words, what has been agreed is a fragile step towards some diminution of the fighting in Ukraine but with no guarantee of success amid an atmosphere of mutual distrust.

Even if today’s agreement were to survive, it is still a long way from the comprehensive countrywide ceasefire the US originally wanted.

It is often said that ceasefires are processes, not events. And that is as true as ever for this agreement.

What matters is not the announcement of any ceasefire, but if and how it is implemented. In other words, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Will both sides make this deal work and then live up to it? Because in the answer to those questions we will learn much about what both sides really want.

Do they want a ceasefire to turn into a longer-term peace? Or do they just want to trade while pressing home their advantage on the battlefield?

Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty was called “a gold digger” and “a murderer”. She was slut-shamed and spent 27 days in prison after a hate-filled vicious media campaign in 2020 alleged she had been involved in the death of her actor boyfriend Sushant Singh Rajput.

Now, India’s federal investigators have told a court that Rajput, a rising star in India’s popular Hindi film industry, died by suicide and that neither Chakraborty nor her family had a role in his death.

In a statement shared with the BBC, senior lawyer Satish Maneshinde, who fought Chakraborty’s case, said the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had “thoroughly investigated every aspect of the case from all angles and closed it”.

The findings have been presented in a special court in Mumbai, which will now decide whether to close the case or to order further investigation.

Mr Maneshinde said Chakraborty went through “untold miseries” and was jailed “for no fault of hers”.

“The false narrative in the social media and electronic media was totally uncalled for,” he said, calling on media bosses to “reflect upon what they did”.

“Innocent people were hounded and paraded before the media and investigative authorities. I hope this does not repeat in any case.”

Feminist lawyer Payal Chawla, meanwhile, described the “misogynistic narrative surrounding Chakraborty” as “deeply troubling” and said the case “should serve as a cautionary reminder of the perils of being judgmental”.

Chakraborty herself has offered no comment since news of CBI wanting to close the case broke at the weekend. On Monday, she was seen visiting a temple along with her brother and father – who were also named in a police complaint filed over Rajput’s death.

Perhaps the only sign that the family feel vindicated comes from her brother Showik – who spent three months in prison before being freed on bail. He shared a photo with Rhea and the caption “Satyamev Jayate” – Sanskrit for “truth alone prevails”.

Rajput was found dead in his Mumbai apartment on 14 June 2020. Mumbai police said the 34-year-old had mental health issues, for which he was under treatment, and appeared to have taken his own life.

Chakraborty, who had been dating Rajput for a year and was living with him, had gone to live with her parents a few days before his death.

“Still struggling to face my emotions… an irreparable numbness in my heart… I will never come to terms with you not being here anymore,” she later wrote on social media about her grief.

But within weeks, the actress found herself at the centre of a firestorm after Rajput’s father lodged a police complaint, accusing Chakraborty of stealing his son’s money and contributing to his suicide. He also denied that his son had any mental health issues.

The Rajput family has not commented on the latest developments regarding his death.

Chakraborty, who consistently denied all the allegations against her, appealed to the government to order a fair probe into the death.

• Rhea Chakraborty on ‘media trial’ after Bollywood star’s death
• Why is Indian TV obsessed with Sushant Singh Rajput’s death?

However, the tragedy – which came in the midst of a lockdown while India was struggling with the coronavirus pandemic – became the biggest prime-time story for a nation glued to their television sets.

And Chakraborty became the subject of misogynistic abuse, with trolls calling her a “witch”, a “fortune huntress”, a “mafia moll” and “sex bait to trap rich men”. She received rape and death threats.

Some of India’s most high-profile television hosts dedicated their entire shows to discussing the case, describing her as a “manipulative” woman who “performed black magic” and “drove Sushant to suicide”.

A video that went viral at the time showed a prominent news anchor hysterically gesticulating and accusing Chakraborty of being “a druggie”. Another channel had a female anchor walk in on the live set, claiming she had “a bagful of documents” that could prove the actress’s guilt.

The vicious hate campaign continued until Chakraborty was arrested three months after Rajput’s death.

She was released a month later and has since tried her hand at motivational speaking and has now reinvented herself as a businesswoman who has launched a clothing line and her own podcast with celebrity interviews. She is also doing a reality TV show.

Chakraborty has also spoken about her ordeal, including how the name-calling and character assassination cost her work and how her family were also hounded.

“I tried contacting people in the [Hindi film] industry, asking for roles, any roles. But then I realised that people won’t cast you because of all that had happened,” she told Humans of Bombay last year.

“I was very angry for a long time. But it gave me acidity and I suffered from gut issues. So, it became important for me to forgive,” she said, adding ” I have not forgiven everyone. Some people are on my hit list.

It is not clear what action she is contemplating against those who vilified her, but many are now suggesting on social media that she sue them for damages.

While neither the actress or her lawyer have not yet said what they intend to do, columnist Namita Bhandare points out that seeking compensation in India, with its overburdened judiciary and millions of pending court cases, is anything but easy.

“A defamation case can go on for a decade and she would possibly get an apology at the end of it. So would she even bother to do that?”

According to Ms Bhandare, Chakraborty “became expendable in the pursuit of a juicy story” since she “was not a big name and had no powerful people backing her in the film industry”.

What happened, the columnist continued, “was in keeping with the traditional Indian thinking” to blame the female partner left behind, and also highlighted the “dark side of social media, which tends to find a villain and then sets about demolishing their reputation”.

Some of the videos of prominent news anchors making slanderous comments against Chakraborty have now resurfaced, and are being shared extensively on social media. Many people, including some of the actress’s Bollywood colleagues, are demanding that the presenters apologise to her.

“You went on a witch-hunt. You caused deep anguish and harassment just for TRPs [a metric used to gauge advertising reach]. Apologise. That’s the very least you can do,” Bollywood actress Dia Mirza said on Instagram.

• Bollywood speaks up for ‘vilified’ actor
• Mystery and voyeurism around Bollywood star’s death

Journalist Rohini Singh named specific TV channels and asked if they would apologise to Chakraborty.

“If they have any shame, any shred of human decency they should issue a grovelling apology for slandering her, telling outrageous lies, getting her imprisoned only because they were determined to run an agenda,” she posted on X.

The issue was also raised in parliament on Tuesday. Journalist-turned-MP Sagarika Ghosh questioned the character assassination Chakraborty was subjected to.

“News channels ran motivated campaigns against her. Today she’s proven innocent. But who will give those years back to her when she endured such humiliation at the hand of media?” she asked.

Two childhood sweethearts have been reunited after more than 85 years thanks to an old school photograph.

Jim Dougal and Betty Davidson (nee Dougal) used to walk to school together hand in hand in Eyemouth in the Scottish Borders in the 1930s.

They lost touch after Jim’s family moved away in about 1939, but his son Alistair’s efforts to trace all the members of a class photo from 1936 brought them back together.

The old friends met again recently in North Yorkshire and Alistair said: “To describe it as a magical moment would be a gross understatement.”

Jim is 96 years old and now lives in Rayne in Essex – but he was born in Eyemouth in 1928.

His son was researching the family ancestry when he was made aware of a class photo at Eyemouth Primary taken in 1936, when his father was probably eight years old.

In total there are 32 children in the photo – including Betty.

Jim left the town a few years later and never returned after getting conscripted and meeting his wife, Iris Gibbs, while in an army camp in Essex.

Meanwhile, Betty remained in Eyemouth until about 1950 when she met her husband Alfred “Ivor” Davidson and then moved, first, to Tweedmouth and then to North Yorkshire, where she still lives near Northallerton.

Alistair said he became fascinated by the school photograph after a visit to Eyemouth last year and set out – with the help of his father’s “astonishing long-term memory” – to find out what had happened to the other children in the image.

He found they had gone all across the globe – including Australia, Canada and New Zealand – but most of them had died.

The first living person he traced in the picture was Margaret MacCauley (nee Duggie), who still lives in the Eyemouth area.

The second was Betty, who is also 96.

“I couldn’t be quite sure although I was almost certain I had traced her to North Yorkshire up to a few years ago,” said Alistair.

“In a final slightly desperate push, I posted a copy of the photo on the Eyemouth Past Facebook group and asked if anyone could help.

“Within an hour, Betty’s niece Maureen Stevenson posted and said, ‘That’s my aunt Betty and, yes, she is alive and well, and in North Yorkshire’.”

“I wrote to Betty and, as soon as she received the letter, she rang me,” said Alistair, who lives about 70 miles from his father in Mendham in Suffolk.

“Not only that, then she sent me a photo she had, after all those years, of her and my father together, along with her sister Wilhelmina (Elma), taken in about 1936 too.

“They each have an arm around the others shoulder. My father was completely overwhelmed.”

The story ended with the reunion nearly 90 years after that photo was taken.

“Before we left her, they re-posed that photo she had retained all that time and they looked as happy and comfortable together as they did way back when,” said Alistair.

“What a thing to see.

“Ultimately, of the 32, just three remain; Margaret, my father and Betty.

“That Betty should be one of those feels – as my father has said – like destiny.”

Betty remembered growing up across the road from Jim.

“I used to knock on the door for him in the morning or he knocked on mine and we used to walk up to school together,” she said.

She also recalled getting the picture taken together in her back garden with her sister Elma.

Their reunion was prompted by the photo of their class appearing in the local paper, the Berwickshire News.

“Jim and I were both on that school photograph and I think the others had all died,” said Betty.

“I was the only one that was left and he was anxious to get in touch with me. I was quite surprised actually.”

She said it had been lovely to see him again.

“I spoke to him a couple of times on the phone and then he said they would like to come and see me, which they did – with his son,” she said.

“It was nice to get in touch after all these years with my childhood sweetheart.

“I think he was quite shy, Jim, but we were good pals.”

Jim described the reunion, thanks to his son’s research, as “fantastic” and he remembered Betty well.

“We lived on opposite sides of the road in Eyemouth,” he explained.

“Right opposite there was a baker’s shop and Betty lived behind it.

“We used to go to school together, we used to play together – everything.

“It is something that she is the last one standing and so am I.

“It is just incredible really.”

He had no regrets about travelling north to meet up with her once again.

“It was terrific, it really was,” Jim said.

“It was a tiring couple of days but it was well worth it.

“She was fantastic – she has still got that glint in her eye and a touch of the fair hair that I remember her by.”

Yoh! I’m so gatvol of this tjoekie and need a zol to handle these moggy people.

No, these are not grammatical errors – this is a sentence comprising South African words included in the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) latest update.

It means: Wow, I’m so annoyed by this prison and need to smoke some marijuana to handle these irrational people.

These popular words are among a slew of “untranslatable words”, defined by the OED as “words and phrases in one language that cannot be translated into another”, featured in the latest lexicon.

Other “loan words” included in the update come from the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Ireland.

The list of South African words come from several of the country’s 12 official languages and they are:

• Yoh: A popular South African interjection, which the OED traced to 1855. It comes from two South African languages: Afrikaans and isiXhosa and is defined as “a cry or exclamation used to express various emotions or reactions, such as surprise, wonder, admiration, shock, or distress”.

• Gatvol: Another popular slang term originating from Afrikaans and used to express “feelings of frustration and anger”. The OED traced this word to 1980 and says the adjective describes “a person who has had enough” or is “extremely annoyed, unhappy or bored” with the persistent state of affairs.

• The hell-in: A colloquial phrase which comes from an Afrikaans saying that literally translates to “in the hell”.

• Tjoekie: Another colloquial term, traced back to 1977, which refers to jail or prison. The word was first introduced into South Africa by English-speaking immigrants from India, according to the OED, “but it made its way into South African English via Afrikaans”. It is related to another slang term for jail – the English term chokey.

• Seshweshwe or shweshwe: This comes from Southern SeSotho and refers to a “type of printed cotton fabric, originally dyed with indigo but now available in various colours”, according to the OED. Seshweshwe patterns are used in traditional southern African clothes or accessories, it added.

• Makarapa: This word can be traced to 1999, and referred to a hard hat worn by construction workers or miners. According to the OED, “it is now more known for its use by sports fans, especially football fans, who paint and elaborately decorate these hats with flags, horns, and badges and wear them at games to show support for their favourite teams”.

• Zol: This term, of unknown origin, is popular in South African slang and refers to marijuana, the drug itself, or “hand-rolled cigarette containing marijuana”, according to the OED.

• Moggy: This adjective, whose origin is also uncertain, can be traced to 1984. According to the OED, it refers to someone “who is extremely irrational or out of touch with reality”.

• Sharp-sharp: The last, and arguably most well-known, phrase featured in the OED’s latest quarterly update can be traced back to 1991. The term is a “casual way to say hello or goodbye in South African English” but can also be used to “compliment someone’s style or just to comment on how generally excellent or fantastic they are”.

A list of all words added from across the world can be found on the OED website.

The University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), for failing to uphold freedom of speech.

The OfS investigation started with the case of Prof Kathleen Stock, who left the university in 2021 after being accused of transphobia for her views on sex and gender issues.

The OfS said the university’s policy statement on trans and non-binary equality, including a requirement to “positively represent trans people”, could lead to staff and students preventing themselves from voicing opposing views.

The University of Sussex plans to legally challenge the OfS findings, vice-chancellor Prof Sasha Roseneil said.

Describing the judgement as an “unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech”, the university said the ruling would leave institutions “powerless to prevent abusive, bullying and harassing speech”.

The OfS, it added, had pursued a “vindictive and unreasonable campaign” against it.

Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, said it would be writing to the OfS to clarify what would represent a breach of freedom of speech rules.

Chief executive Vivienne Stern said the University of Sussex ruling raised concerns about how universities can balance freedom of speech with other legal duties, like preventing harassment and hate speech.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said free speech and academic freedom were “non-negotiables” in universities.

“I have been clear that where those principles are not upheld, robust action will be taken,” she said.

“If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, hear contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable truths.

“We are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech so students and academics are not muzzled by the chilling effect demonstrated in this case.”

The OfS was given the power to issue fines where freedom of speech was not upheld at a university in January.

Arif Ahmed, the OfS director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, said the decision to fine the university had followed a thorough investigation.

It found, he said, that the policy had meant staff feared disciplinary action and that Prof Stock had changed the way she taught her course as a result.

Dr Ahmed added that the OfS was “concerned that a chilling effect may have caused many more students and academics at the university to self-censor”.

The regulator said the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement issued by the University of Sussex was looked at in the context of existing legal duties on freedom of speech, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.

In its report, the OfS found four elements of the policy to be “concerning”.

These included a requirement for course materials to “positively represent trans people and trans lives” and an assertion that “transphobic propaganda… [would] not be tolerated”.

Another part of the policy highlighted by the regulator said “transphobic abuse” would be a serious disciplinary offence for staff and students.

It also looked at the management and governance of the university around freedom of speech.

Prof Stock faced protests on the university campus after she published a book questioning whether gender identity was more “socially significant” than biological sex.

Posters were put up on the campus calling for her to be sacked, and students turned up with placards at an open day.

Prof Stock rejected accusations that she was transphobic and described the experience to the BBC as a “surreal anxiety dream”.

She resigned from her university post in 2021 and was awarded an OBE for services to education.

The fine is the largest issued to a university and is likely to be seen as an intention to hold the line over the expression of legal views.

In a strongly worded statement, the University of Sussex said the regulator had been determined to make an example of its case and “entrench an extreme libertarian free speech position”.

It added there had been no “substantive engagement” other than via written correspondence, and it accused the regulator of pursuing a “vindictive and unreasonable campaign”.

The policy at the heart of the investigation had been adapted from a template, according to the university, and had since been changed.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

A court in Japan has ordered the disbandment of the controversial Unification Church, which came under scrutiny after the shock killing of former prime minister Shinzo Abe in 2022.

The alleged assassin had confessed that he held a grievance against Abe because of the ex-leader’s ties with the church – he blamed the church for bankrupting his family.

Japan’s education and culture ministry sought the church’s dissolution and accused it of manipulating followers into making huge donations and other financial sacrifices.

But the church, more popularly known as the “Moonies”, argued that the donations were part of legitimate religious activities. It can appeal to overturn Tuesday’s ruling.

The order handed down by a Tokyo district court will strip the church of its tax-exempt status and require it to liquidate its assets, but it will still be allowed to operate in Japan.

During their investigation, authorities found that the church coerced followers into buying expensive items by exploiting fears about their spiritual well-being.

They interviewed nearly 200 people who said they were victimised by the church.

The Unification Church, which was started in South Korea, has established a presence in Japan since the 1960s. The name “Moonies” was derived from the name of its founder, Sun Myung Moon.

It has drawn controversy even before Abe’s assassination for teaching that marriage is central to spiritual salvation. It is known for holding mass wedding ceremonies involving thousands of couples.

Since 2023, some 200 former believers who said they were forced to donate to the group have demanded compensations amounting to 5.7 billion yen ($38.5m) in total, according their lawyers.

Investigations following Abe’s assassination revealed close ties between the secretive sect and many conservative ruling-party lawmakers, leading to the resignation of four ministers.

An internal investigation by former prime minister Fumio Kishida’s Liberal Democratic Party found that 179 of its 379 lawmakers had interacted with the Unification Church.

The relationships ranged from attending church events to accepting donations and receiving election support.

The revelations about the extent and level of involvement of the controversial church and the LDP shocked the nation.

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that aims to overhaul US federal elections, including by requiring voters to show proof of citizenship and limiting when states can receive mail-in ballots.

Experts warn the move could disenfranchise millions of Americans who do not have easy access to a passport or other legal documents proving they have the right to vote.

It is unclear how enforceable the order is, given US states have wide legal leeway to determine how they run their elections. It is expected to be challenged in court.

The order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”, was signed by Trump on Tuesday at the White House.

“Election fraud. You’ve heard the term. We’re going to end it, hopefully. At least this will go a long way toward ending it,” Trump said as he signed the order on Tuesday.

The order says that the US has failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protections” and calls on states to co-operate with the the White House or risk losing access to federal funding if they do not require proof of citizenship.

It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in elections.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

Every state is required to use a common registration form that requires people to confirm they are US citizens, under penalty of perjury for false claims, but does not require documentary proof.

Experts say there have been very few cases of immigrants voting illegally in US elections.

The order also seeks to bar states from accepting postal ballots received after election day. Currently, 18 states allow ballots to be received after election day as long as they were mailed on or before the day of the vote.

The order would withdraw federal funding for US states that do not comply.

Trump has been accused of spreading election misinformation, including by claiming that “millions” of illegal immigrants voted in his first election campaign. He also continues to deny that he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

Previous efforts to pass a voter ID law in Congress have failed.

Democrats who have criticised similar past reform attempts have pointed to statistics showing that a large number of Americans do not have an enhanced drivers licence or passport for ID.

The legal basis for the order is expected to be challenged in court.

“The president cannot override a statute passed by Congress that says what is required to register to vote on the federal voter registration form,” Wendy Weiser, from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, told the Washington Post.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said on his blog that elections are largely run by each individual state government, and that if allowed to stand, the order would radically shift power to the federal government.

Papua New Guinea has blocked access to Facebook in what authorities call a “test” to limit hate speech, misinformation and pornography.

The sudden ban, which started on Monday, has drawn criticism from opposition MPs and political critics, who called it a violation of human rights.

Defending the move, Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr said the government is not trying to suppress free speech, but that it has the “responsibility to protect citizens from harmful content”.

Facebook is the most popular social media platform in Papua New Guinea, with an estimated 1.3 million users – including many small businesses that rely on it for sales.

Social media has also been key in facilitating public discourse amid declining press freedom in the country.

Neville Choi, president of Papua New Guinea’s media council, said the move “borders on political autocracy, and an abuse of human rights”.

More concerning was the fact that at least two government agencies that oversee communication and technology said they were unaware of the government’s plans, Mr Choi pointed out, despite the police saying its “test” was done in partnership with these agencies.

“We are now heading into dangerous territory and everyone is powerless to stop this tyranny,” opposition MP Allan Bird wrote on Facebook.

Monday’s ban comes months after the passing of new counter-terrorism laws, which gives the government powers to monitor and restrict online communications, , among other things.

“It is draconian law designed to take away our freedoms,” Bird wrote, adding that the blocking of Facebook was “just step one”.

Despite the ban, many users have still been able to access Facebook using virtual private networks, or VPNs.

John Pora, who chairs the Small and Medium Enterprises Corporation, is more concerned about the thousands of retailers who earn their livelihoods on Facebook.

“We have a couple of hundred thousand people in the informal sector and they’ll be feeling uncertain, so I’m hoping the systems come back online soon to allow them to trade,” he said.

Papua New Guinea authorities have long threatened to make a move against Facebook. In 2018, the country banned the platform for a month while authorities attempted to root out fake profiles. At the time, authorities mooted the idea of a state-run alternative.

In 2023 Papua New Guinea launched a parliamentary inquiry into “fake news, bad news reporting and social media [platforms]” in the country.

Popular Indian comedian Kunal Kamra has refused to apologise after jokes he made during a stand-up show angered supporters of a top politician in Maharashtra state.

Clips of the jokes – some of them were directed at the state’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde – had gone viral.

Members of the Shiv Sena party, which is led by Shinde, vandalised the hotel in Mumbai – the capital of Maharashtra – where the show was held.

A police case was also registered against Kamra and politicians from the state’s ruling coalition have asked him to apologise.

In a statement released on Monday night, Kamra said he would “co-operate with the police and courts for any lawful action” taken against him.

“But will the law be fairly and equally deployed against those who have decided that vandalism is the appropriate response to being offended by a joke?” he added.

Police arrested 12 people for the vandalism at the hotel, which housed a comedy club where the show was filmed. They were later released on bail.

As the controversy raged, Shinde said he did not support the vandalism, but added that “the other person should also maintain a certain standard”.

“There is freedom of expression. We understand satire. But there should be a limit,” he told BBC Marathi.

Kamra is a well-known name in the Indian comedy scene, with his political satire and stand-up shows getting millions of views on social media.

In his latest show – called Naya Bharat (New India) – Kamra refers to Shinde’s 2022 defection from the Shiv Sena party which triggered a major political crisis in the state.

The move led to a split in the Shiv Sena – India’s Election Commission later recognised Shinde’s group as the “real” Shiv Sena. The party is now part of the governing coalition in Maharashtra along with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Nationalist Congress Party.

In the show, Kamra sang a parody of a Bollywood song where he indirectly referred to Shinde as a traitor, outraging his supporters.

It’s not clear when the show was filmed at the hotel but the reactions this week were swift.

After Shiv Sena workers ransacked the venue, the studio Habitat – which often hosted stand-up comedy shows – said it was shutting down until it figured out “the best way to provide a platform for free expression without putting ourselves and our property in jeopardy”.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, Mumbai’s civic authorities, also demolished some structures at the hotel, citing alleged building violations.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who is from the BJP, criticised Kamra, asking him to apologise. “None of us are against freedom of speech. We support satire or even political satire and we do not paint it differently,” he said.

Both he and Shinde accused Kamra of speaking on behalf of the opposition.

A lawmaker from Shinde’s party also said in a video that Shiv Sena workers would pursue Kamra across the country and he would be forced to leave India.

In his statement, Kamra said he would not “hide under [his] bed”, waiting for the outrage to die down.

“As far as I know, it is not against the law to poke fun at our leaders and the circus that is our political system,” he said.

Opposition leaders have supported Kamra.

Uddhav Thackeray, chief of Shinde’s former party – the Shiv Sena (UBT) – said Kamra had not done anything wrong.

“He stated the facts and voiced the public opinion,” he added.

Indian comedians have often faced legal action over comments and jokes. In 2021, Munawar Faruqui spent days in jail after being accused of hurting Hindu religious sentiments in jokes that – it turned out – he didn’t actually crack.

Actor and comedian Vir Das also faced outrage and police complaints after a show in the US where he described India as a country of two sides where people “worship women during the day but gang rape them at night”.

Russia has said some Western sanctions must be lifted before it begins a maritime ceasefire with Ukraine.

Within hours of the US announcing the two sides had agreed to halt strikes in the Black Sea in separate deals, the Kremlin said it would only take place once sanctions on a number of Russian banks were lifted.

The demands include revoking sanctions on the state agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank and restoring the firms’ access to the Swift international payment system.

Overnight, Moscow launched a drone attack on the port city of Mykolaiv, Ukrainian officials said, with President Volodymyr Zelensky saying the strikes were “a clear signal” Russia did not want peace.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU and its allies suspended access to Swift for a number of Russian financial institutions.

The aim was for Russian companies to lose access to the normal smooth and instant transactions provided by Swift, disrupting payments for its valuable energy and agricultural exports.

Reversing that decision would need EU approval, a step that would appear uncertain in light of recent European statements of support for Kyiv.

A European Commission spokesperson said the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine would be one of the main conditions to lift or amend any sanctions.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump said that Russia could be trying to delay ending the war.

“I think that Russia wants to see an end to it, but it could be they’re dragging their feet. I’ve done it over the years,” he said in an interview with Newsmax.

The maritime ceasefire was announced by the US after three days of peace talks in Saudi Arabia.

However Kyiv and Moscow later released conflicting statements on the details of the deal, including when and how it would start.

Zelensky said he believed the deal did not require sanctions relief to come into force and would take effect immediately.

He called the Kremlin’s statement an attempt to “manipulate” the deals.

The Black Sea has not been a central focus of fighting for some time.

In the first stages of the war, Ukraine successfully targeted Russia’s fleet in its Crimean home ports and as of last summer, Ukraine said it had destroyed 28 Russian vessels.

With what was left of the Russian fleet fleeing south and east to Russian and Abkhazian ports, Ukraine has been successfully exporting goods – with grain exports at near pre-war levels – via shipping which hugged the western seaboard of the Black Sea.

So any maritime ceasefire – if it comes into force – is unlikely to reshape the balance of the war that is largely being fought on the ground.

But Dr Jenny Mathers, a senior professor of international politics at Aberystwyth University and expert on Russian politics, said the maritime ceasefire would provide Russia with a “big advantage” as it was currently struggling to export its agricultural produce.

“Ukraine has managed to get out a lot of its agricultural produce through the Black Sea, and it’s managed to successfully target Russian shipping, so Russia doesn’t use the Black Sea at the moment,” Dr Mathers said.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative was struck in 2022, allowing safe passage of commercial ships travelling to and from Ukraine, with UN officials helping Russia get its food and fertiliser exports to foreign markets in return.

Russia withdrew from the agreement in summer 2023, arguing that financial sanctions were hindering its exports, and said it would view any vessel bound for Ukraine as a potential military target.

• Why did Putin’s Russia invade Ukraine?
• Why Trump is struggling to secure fast ceasefire in Ukraine

• ‘My husband is a fighter pilot in Ukraine. Here’s how I really feel about a ceasefire’

Where a maritime ceasefire could make a difference is by protecting Ukrainian ports from Russian air strikes.

“For us, a ceasefire is primarily a cessation of shelling of civilian port infrastructure,” said Dmytro Pletenchuk, the Ukrainian navy spokesperson.

“As of now, we’re in control of the situation at sea; in the Black Sea, in the Azov Sea, and in the waters surrounding temporarily occupied Crimea. That’s why for us, the Ukrainian navy, this situation would not really change anything.”

After announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Washington said all parties would continue working towards a “durable and lasting peace”, adding that the agreement would reopen an important trade route.

Ukraine and Russia also committed to “develop measures” to implement a previously agreed ban on attacking each other’s energy infrastructure, the White House said.

The Black Sea is located south of Ukraine and to the west of Russia, and is also bordered by Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia.

It is also bordered by parts of Russian-occupied Ukraine – including Crimea.

This is the gravest crisis for Western security since the end of World War Two, and a lasting one. As one expert puts it, “Trumpism will outlast his presidency”. But which nations are equipped to step to the fore as the US stands back?

At 09.00 one morning in February 1947, the UK ambassador in Washington, Lord Inverchapel, walked into the State Department to hand the US Secretary of State, George Marshall, two diplomatic messages printed on blue paper to emphasise their importance: one on Greece, the other on Turkey.

Exhausted, broke and heavily in debt to the United States, Britain told the US that it could no longer continue its support for the Greek government forces that were fighting an armed Communist insurgency. Britain had already announced plans to pull out of Palestine and India and to wind down its presence in Egypt.

The United States saw immediately that there was now a real danger that Greece would fall to the Communists and, by extension, to Soviet control. And if Greece went, the United States feared that Turkey could be next, giving Moscow control of the Eastern Mediterranean including, potentially, the Suez Canal, a vital global trade route.

Almost overnight, the United States stepped into the vacuum left by the departing British.

“It must be a policy of the United States,” President Harry Truman announced, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”

It was the start of what became known as the Truman Doctrine. At its heart was the idea that helping to defend democracy abroad was vital to the United States’ national interests.

There followed two major US initiatives: the Marshall Plan, a massive package of assistance to rebuild the shattered economies of Europe, and the creation of Nato in 1949, which was designed to defend democracies from a Soviet Union that had now extended its control over the eastern part of Europe.

It is easy to see this as the moment that leadership of the western world passed from Britain to the United States. More accurately it is the moment that revealed that it already had.

The United States, traditionally isolationist and safely sheltered by two vast oceans, had emerged from World War Two as the leader of the free world. As America projected its power around the globe, it spent the post-war decades remaking much of the world in its own image.

The baby boomer generation grew up in a world that looked, sounded and behaved more like the United States than ever before. And it became the western world’s cultural, economic and military hegemon.

Yet the fundamental assumptions on which the United States has based its geostrategic ambitions now look set to change.

Donald Trump is the first US President since World War Two to challenge the role that his country set for itself many decades ago. And he is doing this in such a way that, to many, the old world order appears to be over – and the new world order has yet to take shape.

The question is, which nations will step forward? And, with the security of Europe under greater strain than at any time almost in living memory, can its leaders, who are currently scrabbling around, find an adequate response?

President Trump’s critique of the post-1945 international order dates back decades. Nearly 40 years ago he took out full-page advertisements in three US newspapers to criticise the United States’ commitment to the defence of the world’s democracies.

“For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States,” he wrote in 1987. “Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests?

“The world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

It’s a position he has repeated since his second inauguration.

And the fury felt by some in his administration for what they perceive as European reliance on the United States was apparently shown in the leaked messages about air strikes on Houthis in Yemen that emerged this week.

In the messages, an account named Vice-President JD Vance wrote that European countries might benefit from the strikes. It said: “I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

Another account, identified as Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Trump’s own position appears to go beyond criticising those he says are taking advantage of the United State’s generosity. At the start of his second presidency, he seemed to embrace Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling Russia that Ukraine would not be granted Nato membership and that it should not expect to get back the territory it has lost to Russia.

Many saw this as giving away two major bargaining chips before talks had even started. He apparently asked Russia for nothing in return.

On the flipside, certain Trump supporters see in Putin a strong leader who embodies many of the conservative values they themselves share.

To some, Putin is an ally in a “war on woke”.

The United States’ foreign policy is now driven, in part at least, by the imperatives of its culture wars. The security of Europe has become entangled in the battle between two polarised and mutually antagonistic visions of what the United States stands for.

Some think the division is about more than Trump’s particular views and that Europe can not just sit tight waiting for his term in office to end.

“The US is becoming divorced from European values,” argues Ed Arnold, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. “That’s difficult [for Europeans] to swallow because it means that it’s structural, cultural and potentially long-term. “

“I think the current trajectory of the US will outlast Trump, as a person. I think Trumpism will outlast his presidency.”

The Trump White House has said it will no longer be the primary guarantor of European security, and that European nations should be responsible for their own defence and pay for it.

“If [Nato countries] don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them,” the president said earlier this month.

For almost 80 years, the cornerstone of European security has been embedded in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one member state of the alliance is an attack on all.

In Downing Street last month, just before his visit to the White House, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told me during an interview that he was satisfied that the United States remained the leading member of Nato and that Trump personally remained committed to Article 5.

Others are less sure.

Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary in the last Conservative government, told me earlier this month: “I think Article 5 is on life support.

“If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn’t step up to the plate, invest a lot on defence and take it seriously, it’s potentially the end of the Nato that we know and it’ll be the end of Article 5.

“Right now, I wouldn’t bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn’t take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue.”

According to polling by the French company Institut Elabe, nearly three quarters of French people now think that the United States is not an ally of France. A majority in Britain and a very large majority in Denmark, both historically pro-American countries, now have unfavourable views of the United States as well.

“The damage Trump has done to Nato is probably irreparable,” argues Robert Kagan, a conservative commentator, author and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC who has been a long time critic of Trump.

“The alliance relied on an American guarantee that is no longer reliable, to say the least”.

And yet Trump is by no means the first US president to tell Europe to get its defence spending in order. In 2016 Barack Obama urged Nato allies to increase theirs, saying: “Europe has sometimes been complacent about its own defence.”

All of this is great news for Putin. “The entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes,” he said last year. “Europe is being marginalised in global economic development, plunged into the chaos of challenges such as migration, and losing international agency and cultural identity.”

In early March, three days after Volodymyr Zelensky’s disastrous meeting with Trump and Vance in the White House, a Kremlin spokesman declared “the fragmentation of the West has begun”.

“Look at Russia’s objectives in Europe,” says Armida van Rij, head of the Europe programme at Chatham House. “Its objectives are to destabilise Europe. It is to weaken Nato, and get the Americans to withdraw their troops from here.

“And at the moment you could go ‘tick, tick and almost tick’. Because it is destabilising Europe. It is weakening Nato. It hasn’t gone as far as to get the US to withdraw troops from Europe, but in a few months time, who knows where we’ll be?”

One of the great challenges Europe, in particular, faces from here is the question of how to arm itself adequately. Eighty years of reliance on the might of the United States has left many European democracies exposed.

Britain, for example, has cut military spending by nearly 70% since the height of the Cold War. (At the end of the Cold War, in the early 1990s, Europe allowed itself a peace dividend and began a decades-long process of reducing defence spending.)

“We had a big budget [during the Cold War] and we took a peace dividend,” says Wallace. “Now, you could argue that that was warranted.

“The problem is we went from a peace dividend to corporate raiding. [Defence] just became the go-to department to take money from. And that is where we just forgot the lessons of our history.”

The prime minister told parliament last month that Britain would increase defence spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027. But is that enough?

“It isn’t enough just to stand still,” argues Wallace. “It wouldn’t be enough to fix the things we need to make ourselves more deployable, and to plug the gaps if the Americans left.”

Then there is the wider question of military recruitment. “The West is in freefall in its military recruiting, it’s not just Britain,” argues Wallace.

“At the moment, young people aren’t joining the military. And that’s a problem.”

But Germany’s new Chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has said Europe must make itself independent of the United States. And “Europeanising” NATO will require the build up of an indigenous European military-industrial complex capable of delivering capabilities that currently only the United States has.

Others share the view that Europe must become more self reliant militarily – but some are concerned that not all of Europe is on board with this.

“Where we are at the moment is that the East Europeans by and large, don’t need to get the memo,” says Ian Bond, deputy director, Centre for European Reform. “The further west you go, the more problematic it becomes until you get to Spain and Italy.”

Mr Arnold agrees: “The view in Europe now is this isn’t really a debate anymore, it’s a debate of how we do it and maybe how quickly we do it, but we need to do this now.”

There is a short list of “very important things” that only the United States currently provides, according to historian Timothy Garton Ash.

“These are the so-called strategic enablers,” he says. “The satellites, the intelligence, the Patriot air defence batteries, which are the only ones that can take down Russian ballistic missiles. And within three to five years we [countries other than the US] should aim to have our own version of these.

“And in this process of transition, from the American-led Nato [the idea is] you will have a Nato that is so Europeanised that its forces, together with national forces and EU capacities, are capable of defending Europe – even if an American president says ‘leave us out of this’.”

The question is how to achieve this.

Ms van Rij stresses that, in her view, Europe does need to build a Europe-owned European defence industrial base – but she foresees difficulties.

“What’s really difficult are the divisions within Europe on how to actually do this and whether to actually do this.”

The European Commission and experts have been trying to figure out how this defence may work for several decades. “It has traditionally been very difficult because of vested national interests… So this is not going to be easy.”

In the meantime, Trump appears ready to turn the page on the post-Cold War rules-based international order of sovereign states that are free to choose their own destinies and alliances.

What he seems to share with Vladimir Putin is a desire for a world in which the major powers, unconstrained by internationally agreed laws, are free to impose their will on smaller, weaker nations, as Russia has traditionally done in both its Tsarist and Soviet Empires. That would mean a return to the “spheres of interest” system that prevailed for 40 years after the Second World War.

We don’t know exactly what Donald Trump would do were a Nato country to be attacked. But the point is that the guarantee of US help can no longer be taken for granted. That means Europe has to react. Its challenge appears to be to stay united, finally make good on funding its own defence, and avoid being drawn into the “sphere of influence” of any of the big powers.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Hundreds of people have taken part in the largest anti-Hamas protest in Gaza since the war with Israel began, taking to the streets to demand the group step down from power.

Masked Hamas militants, some armed with guns and others carrying batons, intervened and forcibly dispersed the protesters, assaulting several of them.

Videos shared widely on social media by activists typically critical of Hamas showed young men marching in the streets of Beit Lahia, northern Gaza on Tuesday, chanting “out, out, out, Hamas out”.

Hamas has not commented directly on the protest, but in a statement on Wednesday it blamed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for resuming the war.

Pro-Hamas supporters downplayed the significance of the protests and accused the participants of being traitors.

The protests in northern Gaza came a day after Islamic Jihad gunmen launched rockets at Israel, prompting an Israeli decision to evacuate large parts of Beit Lahia, which sparked public anger in the area.

Israel has resumed its military campaign in Gaza following nearly two months of ceasefire, blaming Hamas for rejecting a new US proposal to extend the truce. Hamas, in turn, has accused Israel of abandoning the original deal agreed in January.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and thousands displaced since Israeli military operations resumed with air strikes on 18 March.

One of the protesters, Beit Lahia resident Mohammed Diab, had his home destroyed in the war and lost his brother in an Israeli airstrike a year ago.

“We refuse to die for anyone, for any party’s agenda or the interests of foreign states,” he said.

“Hamas must step down and listen to the voice of the grieving, the voice that rises from beneath the rubble – it is the most truthful voice.”

Footage from the town also showed protesters shouting “down with Hamas rule, down with the Muslim Brotherhood rule”.

Hamas has been the sole ruler in Gaza since 2007, after winning Palestinian elections a year prior and then violently ousting rivals.

Open criticism of Hamas has grown in Gaza since war began, both on the streets and online, though there are still those that are fiercely loyal and it is hard to accurately gauge how far support for the group has shifted.

There was opposition to Hamas long before the war, though much of it remained hidden for fear of reprisals.

Mohammed Al-Najjar, from Gaza, posted on his Facebook: “Excuse me, but what exactly is Hamas betting on? They’re betting on our blood, blood that the whole world sees as just numbers.

“Even Hamas counts us as numbers. Step down and let us tend to our wounds.”

The war in Gaza was triggered by Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, during which around 1,200 people, mainly civilians, were killed and 251 others taken hostage.

Israel responded to the attack with a military offensive in Gaza to destroy Hamas, which has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, the Hamas-run health ministry said.

Most of Gaza’s 2.1 million population has also been displaced, many of them several times.

An estimated 70% of buildings have been damaged or destroyed in Gaza, healthcare, water and sanitation systems have collapsed and there are shortages of food, fuel, medicine and shelter.

India’s Supreme Court has put on hold a recent high court court which said that “grabbing [the] breasts” of a girl and breaking off the drawstrings of her lower garment could not be considered an attempt to rape.

The Allahabad high court had ruled last week that the offence could only be described as “aggravated sexual assault”, which involves a lesser punishment.

The top court judges said some of the comments in the high court order depicted “a total lack of sensitivity” on the part of the judge who wrote it.

The high court ruling led to outrage in India.

On Wednesday, the two-judge Supreme Court bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine described the 17 March order as “shocking”, especially since it was not delivered “on the spur of the moment” but had been well thought through after being reserved for four months.

The top court has now sent notices to India’s federal authorities and state government in Uttar Pradesh, where the court in Allahabad (now called Prayagraj) is located.

According to the prosecution, the case involves an 11-year-old girl whose mother has alleged that the two accused offered a lift to her daughter on their motorbike, promising to drop her home.

She sent the child with the men who were from the same village and known to them.

“The accused persons stopped their motorcycle on the way to the village and started grabbing her breasts,” the high court order said, adding that one of the men dragged her beneath a culvert and “broke her pyjama [lower garment] string”.

She was rescued by some villagers who were passing by and were alerted by her cries for help, forcing her attackers to flee.

The accused have denied the allegations against them.

The high court ruling was based on the argument that “attempt to rape” was different from “preparation”, legal website Live Law reported, quoting from the high court order.

“The prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” the order said.

The controversial ruling led to outrage in the country with many describing the judgement as “atrocious”.

Senior lawyer Indira Jaising told a TV channel that what happened with the child “goes beyond preparation” and in legal terms “it is attempt to commit rape”.

“How do you prove intent? It is proved by actions that precede the actual act of rape,” she said, adding that the fact that the girl was dragged to a secluded place meant it had gone beyond preparation.

India’s Women and Child Welfare Minister Annapurna Devi told news agency Press Trust of India that “the high court ruling has no place in a civilised society and that it will have an adverse impact on society”.

Denmark has welcomed changes to a Greenland trip by US Vice-President JD Vance and his wife Usha, which has been reduced to a visit of just a US space base.

Earlier this week, it was announced that Usha Vance would spend several days in Greenland, visiting the capital Nuuk and attending cultural events like a popular annual dogsled race.

The White House said on Tuesday that JD Vance would join his wife in Greenland but that the couple would only spend a day there visiting the US Pituffik Space Base, on the north-western coast.

US President Donald Trump has continued his threats of taking over Greenland, a Danish semi-autonomous territory, saying on Wednesday: “We’re going to have to have it”.

“We need Greenland for international safety and security,” Trump added.

Although JD Vance will become the highest-ranking US official to visit Greenland, a visit to a US base is less controversial than the original plan for his wife’s visit, which Greenland’s acting head of government Mute Egede called a “provocation”.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said on Wednesday that the decision was “very positive” and that Denmark had “nothing against” the Americans visiting their own base.

Rasmussen also said it was a “masterful spin in many ways, to make [the US] look like they’re escalating when they’re actually deescalating.”

The revised programme will also likely reduce the risk of the Vances being met with protests by local residents.

In recent weeks hundreds of people have taken part in demonstrations against the US, with some holding placards reading “Respect international agreements” and “Yankee go home”.

Earlier in March, Greenland’s leading political parties issued a joint statement to condemn Trump’s “unacceptable behaviour”.

Outgoing Prime Minister Mute B Egede wrote on Facebook that his country would “never be the USA and we Greenlanders will never be Americans… Don’t keep treating us with disrespect. Enough is enough.”

On Wednesday morning, Greenland media reported that several armoured cars which had arrived on the island in preparation for Usha Vance’s visit were being loaded back on an American military plane.

Greenland – the world’s biggest island, situated between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans – has been controlled by Denmark, nearly 3,000km (1,860 miles) away, for about 300 years.

It governs its own domestic affairs, but decisions on foreign and defence policy are made in Copenhagen. The US has long held a security interest and a military presence there since World War Two.

The Pituffik Space Base, located in the north-west of Greenland, supports missile warning, air defence and space surveillance missions.

In a video posted on social media platform X on Tuesday, Vance said there was a lot of excitement around his wife’s trip to Greenland. He is joining her because he “didn’t want her to have all that fun by herself”.

He said the visit to the military installation was to check on the island’s security, as “a lot of other countries have threatened Greenland, have threatened to use its territories and its waterways to threaten the United States, to threaten Canada, and of course, to threaten the people of Greenland”.

He added that the Trump administration wanted to “reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland”, and that the United States and Denmark have ignored it for “far too long”.

It is unclear if Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz is still scheduled to visit. The BBC has reached out to the White House for confirmation.

Dr Dwayne Ryan Menezes, founder and managing director of Polar Research and Policy Initiative think tank, based in London, criticised the visit.

He said it was “highly unusual” that a high-level delegation of US officials are visiting Greenland without being invited, especially after a national election in the country, where the parties are still in talks to form the next government.

The US’ interest in Greenland’s security, given its strategic importance, makes sense, he said. But he added that it is “inexplicable” for Washington DC to have taken such an aggressive approach, especially in light of Trump’s comments about acquiring the territory.

“Disrespecting the people of Greenland by saying the US will acquire it ‘one way or the other’ is unhelpful and counter-productive as a tactic,” he added.

According to recent polls, almost 80% of Greenlanders back independence from Denmark. But an opinion survey in January suggested an even greater number rejected the idea of becoming part of the US.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

At least 24 people have been killed as multiple wildfires continue to ravage South Korea’s south-east region.

Most of the victims are in their 60s and 70s, authorities say, adding that some 26 people are injured – with 12 in critical condition. More than 23,000 people have been forced to flee their homes.

The “unprecedented” crisis is “rewriting the record books for the worst wildfires in our nation’s history”, acting president Han Duck-soo has said.

The fires gutted a 1,300-year-old temple in Uiseong city, where many cultural relics were removed and transported to safer ground.

The fires started in Sancheong county on Friday and later spread to Uiseong county.

Fuelled by strong and dry winds, they spread to the neighbouring counties of Gyeongbuk, Uiseong, Andong, Cheongsong, Yeongyang and Sancheong.

On Tuesday, the national fire agency raised the crisis to the highest fire response level.

On Wednesday, a firefighting helicopter crashed in the mountains of Uiseong, killing the pilot. Officials are investigating the cause.

Thousands of firefighters and about 5,000 military personnel have been deployed to contain the flames, as well as helicopters from the US military stationed in Korea.

Wildfires are relatively uncommon in South Korea. The current fires are already the deadliest in its history.

About 17,000 hectares (42,000 acres) of forest have also been destroyed, making the fires the third largest in South Korea’s history in terms of area.

One resident of a village in Andong told BBC Korean: “Our house has completely burned down. It was almost completely collapsed.”

Elsewhere in Andong, people sheltering at an elementary school were told to leave quickly as the fire was spread by gusty winds.

A 30-year-old man living in Uiseong said: “Both the upstairs and next door houses were burned down. This area is full of grandparents. They have lived here their whole lives, and when their houses burn down, they have nowhere to go.”

In the city of Uiseong, the fire destroyed the Gounsa temple – one of the largest temples in the province built in 618 AD.

A 68-year-old monk said he was “devastated” when he heard that about the destruction of the Gounsa temple. “We will do our best to restore the function of the temple,” he told AFP news agency.

A Buddhist architectural structure deemed a national treasure from the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910) was also destroyed, forestry authorities confirmed.

In Andong, truck driver Lee Seung-joo said he saw the mountains burn as he drove by. “It was like the apocalypse,” the 39-year-old said, according to AFP.

Acting president Han said strong winds were still hampering firefighting and rescue efforts.

“We were desperately hoping for rain today or tomorrow to help extinguish the flames,” Han added.

No rain was forecast for the region on Wednesday and only a small amount – five to 10mm – expected on Thursday, according to the Korea Meteorological Administration.

South Korea has been experiencing drier than normal conditions with less rainfall than average. There have already been 244 wildfires this year – 2.4 times more than the same period last year.

The government also promised to strengthen enforcement against illegal burning -one of the main causes of wildfires – and crack down on individual carelessness.

It was Sunday, 19 January 2020.

All attempts to negotiate a new role for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex within the royal family had failed, and Harry and Meghan were about to head off to a new life in the United States.

Prince Harry made one final speech about how he was feeling.

He delivered it at a dinner for his beloved Sentebale charity.

This was a safe space for him. Amongst charity workers, donors and friends, he spoke of the love and happiness he had found with Meghan, of honouring his mother’s legacy, and described his “sadness” at leaving the UK.

“Together, you have given me an education about living, and this role has taught me more about what is right and just than I could ever have imagined,” he told dinner guests.

“We are taking a leap of faith, so thank you for giving me the courage to take this next step.”

Sentebale had been part of Prince Harry’s world for his entire adult life. It had ridden the storm of family fallout and leaving royal life behind.

He first visited Lesotho, the landlocked mountain kingdom in southern Africa, when he was 19, in 2004. He’d just left Eton and was on a gap year before his military training at Sandhurst.

It was a formative time for Harry.

What he saw during his gap year prompted him to set up the charity two years later.

It would support children who had lost parents to HIV and Aids.

And then there is the Diana factor. Sentebale means “forget-me-not” in Sesotho, the language of Lesotho.

Back at that Sentebale dinner in 2020, he told guests: “When I lost my mum… you took me under your wing. You looked out for me for so long.”

The connection to Diana, Princess of Wales, is an important personal part of the Sentebale story.

His joint founder, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, had also lost his mother. They were both motivated by a sense of loss. Remembering their mothers drove much of what they did over the past two decades.

Prince Seeiso became a personal friend of Harry. Seeiso was a guest at his wedding in Windsor in 2018. He’d also been at the wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales at Westminster Abbey seven years earlier.

This makes their joint decision to walk away from Sentebale all the more powerful.

Prince Harry’s move to the US has impacted his ability to be hands-on with some of his charity work. But his team in California say he remains a strong supporter of them all and plays an active part in what they do.

He last visited Lesotho in 2024 and, with Prince Seeiso, saw the latest work the charity was doing. His commitment to the charity would “never falter”, he said.

But, for now, Prince Harry has walked away in what has clearly been a catastrophic breakdown in the trustees’ relationship with the chair of the board.

There has been a personal fallout, a wrangle over the charity’s future direction, and broken relationships with damaging accusations being made.

Prince Harry has been here before.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out her plans for the UK economy during her Spring Statement in the House of Commons.

It came as the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – which monitors the government’s spending plans – unveiled its latest economic forecasts.

Here is a summary of the main points.

• Health-related universal credit for new claimants, which was already due to be halved from April 2026 under a package announced last week, will also now be frozen in cash terms until 2030
• The standard allowance for universal credit will now rise to £106 per week, instead of £107 per week in 2030
• As outlined last week, for existing claimants health-related payments will be frozen in cash terms until 2030
• There will also be a stricter eligibility test for personal independence payments (Pips), the main disability benefit, from November 2026
• Incapacity benefits to be frozen in cash terms for existing claimants at £97 per week from April next year, with a top-up payment for those with the most severe conditions
• Those aged under 22 will no longer be able to claim the incapacity benefit top-up of universal credit

• Live: Follow the latest on the chancellor’s announcement
• Analysis: Low growth and higher borrowing costs have blown budgetary numbers off course

• The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has downgraded predicted growth for this year from 2% to 1%
• But it has upgraded estimated growth for the next four years, to 1.9% next year, 1.8% in 2027, then 1.7% in 2028 and 1.8% in 2029
• Inflation forecast to average 3.2% this year, up from 2.6% previously forecast, before falling back to 2.1 in 2026
• Inflation expected to hit 2% government target from 2027
• The OBR says changes to England’s planning system announced last year will boost housebuilding by 170,000 over five years, growing the size of the economy by 0.2%

• The OBR says that without action, the government would have been on course to miss its self-imposed rule to balance spending against taxes by 2030
• A £9.9bn financial buffer against this target set in October’s Budget has been wiped out, with the Treasury blaming higher debt costs
• Taking account of savings, the OBR now says there is a 54% chance this rule will be met in 2030, up slightly from a 51% likelihood in October
• The chance of meeting the government’s other main rule, that public debt is projected to be falling as a share of the economy, remains at 51%

• Defence spending, which had been due to rise £2.9bn next year, to increase by a further £2.2bn
• The Treasury says this will take military expenditure to 2.36% of national income next year, a “down payment” on plans to raise it to 2.5% by 2027
• Ministers say the spending will be funded by reducing overseas aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income in 2027, and from the Treasury’s reserves

• Target to reduce the administrative costs of government departments by 15% by 2030
• About 10,000 civil service jobs are expected to go, including staff working in HR, policy advice, communications and office management

South Korean governments committed numerous human rights violations over decades in a controversial programme that sent at least 170,000 children and babies abroad for adoption, a landmark inquiry has found.

It said the government’s lack of oversight enabled the “mass exportation of children” by private agencies that were driven by profit, and found examples of fraud, falsified records and coercion.

Since the 1950s, South Korea has sent more children abroad for adoption than any other country, with most sent to Western countries.

South Korea has sinced moved to tighten its adoption processes, but some adoptees and their biological parents say they are still haunted by what they went through. The BBC spoke to one woman who claimed her adoptive parents “took better care of the dog than they ever did of me”.

“This is a shameful part of our history,” said Park Sun-young, the chairperson of the commission, at a press briefing.

“While many adoptees were fortunate to grow up in loving families, others suffered great hardship and trauma due to flawed adoption processes. Even today, many continue to face challenges.”

The report was released on Wednesday by the independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission following an investigation that began in 2022.

Since then, 367 adoptees – all of which were sent overseas between 1964 and 1999 – had filed petitions alleging fradulent practices in their adoption process.

Some 100 petitions have been analysed so far, of whom 56 adoptees were recognised as victims of human rights violations. The commission is still investigating other cases, with the inquiry set to end in May.

In the aftermath of the Korean war, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and few families were keen on adopting children.

South Korea’s government then began a transnational adoption programme handled by private agencies, which were given significant powers through special adoption laws.

But there was a “systemic failure in oversight and management”, which led to numerous lapses committed by these agencies, according to the report.

The report noted that foreign agencies had demanded a set number of children every month and Korean agencies complied, “facilitating large-scale intercountry adoptions with minimal procedural oversight”.

With no government regulation on fees, the Korean agencies charged large amounts and demanded “donations”, which turned adoptions into “a profit-driven industry”, according to the report.

Other lapses include adoptions conducted without proper consent from birth mothers and inadequate screening of adoptive parents.

The agencies also fabricated reports that made children appear as if they were abandoned and put up for adoption; and intentionally gave children wrong identities.

Because many adoptees had false identities listed in their paperwork, they now struggle to obtain information about their birth families and are left with inadequate legal protection, the report noted.

The commission has recommended the government deliver an official apology, and to comply with international standards on transnational adoptions.

South Korea has moved to tighten its adoption processes in recent years. In 2023, it passed a law ensuring that all overseas adoptions would be handled by a government ministry instead of private agencies, which is due to come into effect by July.

The South Korean government has yet to respond to Wednesday’s report.

Inger-Tone Ueland Shin, 60, was one of the petitioners whose cases were investigated by the commission. She was adopted by a Norwegian couple when she was 13 – and discovered later on that her adoption was illegal.

The couple, who were in their 50s at the time, had initially applied to adopt but were rejected by Norwegian authorities as they were too old.

They then travelled to South Korea and visited an orphanage, where they selected Inger-Tone and took her with them to Norway.

The couple only submitted an adoption application to Norwegian authorities years later. The authorities approved it, despite acknowledging the illegality of Inger-Tone’s situation, because they determined that by then she had “no connection to Korea anymore”.

Inger-Tone told the BBC she had great difficulty adjusting to life in Norway, and also alleged her adoptive father sexually abused her.

“They took better care of the dog than they ever did of me,” she said. “It was so painful. I wasn’t able to talk or express myself, other than crying at night”.

In 2022, she successfully sued her local government in Norway and was awarded damages. She also received her local government’s acknowledgment that it was liable for “failing to supervise” her adoptive home.

Her adoptive parents have since died.

“They have never spent time in prison for what they’ve done to me. They criminally picked up a child outside of the country… nobody has taken responsibility for what they did to me,” she said.

While she is satisfied with the results of the commission’s investigation, she said: “I have been living in the wrong country and I have had a painful and miserable life.”

“I don’t wish this for anyone and I sincerely hope they do not adopt any more children out of Korea.”

“It took a huge amount of courage to speak out,” NewJeans have told the BBC in their first interview since a court blocked their attempt to leave their record label, in a case that has rocked the K-pop industry.

“This fight is necessary. Although it will be extremely difficult and arduous, we will keep doing what we have done so far and speak up,” said Haerin, one of the members of the five-piece.

“We thought it was important to tell the world about what we’ve been through. All the choices we’ve made so far have been the best choices we could have made.”

NewJeans looked invincible in the charts when they launched what was an unusual rebellion in the high-pressure, tightly-controlled world of K-pop. Hanni, Hyein, Haerin, Danielle and Minji stunned South Korea and fans everywhere with their decision in November to split from Ador, the label that launched them.

They alleged mistreatment, workplace harassment and an attempt to “undermine their careers”, which Ador denies. It sued to enforce their seven-year contract, which is set to expire in 2029, and sought an injunction against any commercial activities by the group.

On Friday, a South Korean court granted it, ordering NewJeans to stop all “independent” activities, including song releases and advertising deals, while the case was still under way. NewJeans has since challenged the injunction in court.

Friday’s ruling was a “shock”, the group told the BBC.

“Some people think that we’re famous enough to do whatever we want and say whatever we please. But the truth is, it’s not like that at all,” Hyein said. “We held it in for a long time, and only now have we finally spoken up about what we think, what we feel and the unfairness we’ve experienced.”

The K-pop industry has repeatedly come under fire for the pressure it puts on its stars not only to perform and succeed, but to appear perfect. But rarely do conflicts spill into the public, exposing stars’ grievances and rifts with their labels.

NewJeans’ dramatic announcement last year followed a long and public spat with Ador and its parent company, Hybe – South Korea’s biggest music label, whose client list includes K-pop royalty such as BTS and Seventeen.

Ador told the BBC in a statement that the contract with NewJeans still stands, adding that “most of their claims have risen from misunderstandings”. The court said that NewJeans did not “sufficiently prove” that Ador had violated the contract, adding that the label had upheld “most of its duties, including payment”.

The girls were rehearsing for a performance in Hong Kong, when news of the ruling dropped. They found out when Minji got a worried message from her mother: “She asked me, ‘are you okay?’ And I was like ‘what happened?'”

“I was stunned,” Minji says. So were the others when she told them. “At first I thought I didn’t hear her properly,” Danielle says. “We were all kind of in shock.”

This was their second of two interviews with the BBC in as many weeks. In the first interview, which happened before the ruling, the group had been excited to release their new single, Pit Stop – their first since they announced their break from Ador and renamed themselves NJZ.

They spoke about how they coped with a difficult period, including finding comfort in cooking. “I’m not really good at it but it’s kind of healing,” Minji had said, before promising to cook an “amazing dinner” for the group.

In the second interview, which was 24 hours after the ruling, they seemed disheartened and unsettled, less sure of what was to come. “If we knew we were gonna go through this, maybe we would have chosen…” Hanni trailed off as she teared up.

Seconds later, she continued: “Even if we do everything we can and it doesn’t work out the way we hope it does, then we’ll just have to leave it to time. I’m sure time would figure it out for us.”

The following night, they took to the stage in Hong Kong and, despite the court order, performed Pit Stop under their new name. But the evening, which they had pitched to fans as a fresh start, ended in tears as they told the crowd they were going on a hiatus.

“It wasn’t any easy decision to make,” Hyein said on stage, as each of them took turns to address their fans. “But at the moment for us, it’s about protecting ourselves, so that we can come back stronger.”

Just three years into their debut, the future of the young stars – they are aged between 16 and 20 – is now in question.

But they tell the BBC that this is not the end of the road for them as they “find more ways” forward. With the legal battle expected to last for months, if not years, Minji says that gives them time to plan what they want to do next.

Ever since they debuted in July 2022, NewJeans have delivered remarkable success with each new release – OMG, Ditto, Super Shy, Attention. A year on, they were the eighth biggest-selling act in the world.

Critics called them a “game-changer” as their uniquely playful blend of 1990s R&B and sugar-coated pop melodies broke through a K-pop market dominated by electronic beats. And their breezy dance moves stood out among super-synchronised videos.

They were still on the rise when Min Hee-jin – Ador’s former boss and their long-time mentor, who launched them – began trading accusations publicly with Hybe. The music label had created Ador, granting Min a minority shareholding and further stock options, before she was removed from her role last August.

Hybe was now accusing her of plotting Ador’s takeover and Min, in an emotional press conference, accused them of undermining NewJeans by launching another girl group with a similar style. The fight got uglier and Min left the company, alleging she was forced out.

That’s when NewJeans broke their silence – they demanded Min’s return in two weeks in a livestream.

They were not able to contact her for a while, Danielle told the BBC in the first interview: “We didn’t know what was happening and we didn’t have a way to support her. That itself was a hard thing because she was always there for us and… in a way a person to look up to.”

Ador had said Min could not return as CEO, but could continue as an internal director and NewJeans’ producer. When Min didn’t return, NewJeans announced that they were leaving Ador and accused the label of not meeting other demands: an apology for alleged bullying and actions against what they claimed were controversial internal reports.

Ador, which denies all these allegations, appears to blame Min for their dispute with NewJeans. “The core of this issue lies in the label’s ex-management providing distorted explanations to their artists, leading to misunderstandings. They can be fully addressed and resolved upon the members’ return to the label,” Ador told the BBC in a statement.

In the months since, Hanni, a Vietnamese-Australian, testified in tears to South Korean lawmakers in an inquiry into workplace harassment. “I came to the realisation that this wasn’t just a feeling. I was honestly convinced that the company hated us,” she told them, after describing several incidents where she said the group felt undermined and bullied.

NewJeans’ case was dismissed because the labour ministry said K-pop stars did not qualify as workers and were not entitled to the same rights.

Then in December, NewJeans took another rare step by supporting fans who were calling for the impeachment of South Korea’s disgraced president, Yoon Suk Yeol who had briefly imposed martial law – the group provided free food and drinks to fans who showed up at the huge protest rallies.

With each round of publicity, there was also criticism, much of it involving their age. Some said they had “crossed the line”, while others called them “stupid and reckless,” and even “ungrateful” for picking a fight with Ador. Others questioned if they were making their own decisions.

Being young doesn’t mean they should be taken less seriously, the group says. “That’s an easy way to devalue the fact that we are actually trying to do something,” Hanni says. “The decisions we’ve made in the past year have been decided through a very, very large amount of discussion between us.”

As the dispute has dragged on, the critics have got louder, dubbing the girls as troublemakers rather than game-changers. Following the ruling, which their critics welcomed, NewJeans say they have been “very aware of the intense scrutiny and judgment” ever since they held that press conference last year.

“There hasn’t been a single moment when we’ve expressed our opinions without worry or tension,” Minji says. “We’ve thought more than anyone else about how much responsibility each of our actions carries, and we’re currently bearing that responsibility ourselves.”

It’s not clear how long their hiatus will last. Ador says it hopes to meet the group soon to discuss the future, but NewJeans insist they don’t feel protected enough to go back.

Their lawsuit with Ador will return to the headlines next week when the hearings begin – and so will all five of them.

The one thing that seems constant is their determination to get through this together.

Two weeks ago, Hanni had said: “We’ve always said to each other, if one person doesn’t want to do it, then we’re not going to do it. It has to be all all five of us that agrees to do it. That’s how we’ve gotten here and that’s how we are going to get to the end.”

On Saturday, she repeated: “We’re gonna get through it.”