Two weeks after a deadly militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India has launched a series of strikes on sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The Indian defence ministry said the strikes – named “Operation Sindoor” – were part of a “commitment” to hold those responsible for the 22 April attack which left 25 Indians and one Nepali national dead “accountable”.

But Pakistan, which has denied any involvement in last month’s attack, has described the strikes as “unprovoked”, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying the “heinous act of aggression will not go unpunished”.

Pakistan’s military says it has shot down five Indian aircraft and a drone. India has yet to respond to these claims.

Pakistan’s military spokesperson Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said at least 26 people were killed and 46 injured. India, meanwhile, said at least seven civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Delhi said in the early hours of Wednesday morning that nine different locations had been targeted in both Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan.

It said these sites were “terrorist infrastructure” – places where attacks were “planned and directed”.

It emphasised that it had not hit any Pakistani military facilities, saying its “actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”.

According to Pakistan, three different areas were hit: Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and Bahawalpur in the Pakistani province of Punjab.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told GeoTV that the strikes hit civilian areas, adding that India’s claim of “targeting terrorist camps” is false.

The strikes come after weeks of rising tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours over the shootings in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam.

The 22 April attack by a group of militants saw 26 people killed, with survivors saying the militants were singling out Hindu men.

It was the worst attack on civilians in the region in two decades, and sparked widespread anger in India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the country would hunt the suspects “till the ends of the Earth” and that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”.

However, India has not named any group it suspects carried out the attack in Pahalgam and it remains unclear who did it.

But Indian police have alleged two of the attackers were Pakistani nationals, with Delhi accusing Pakistan of supporting militants – a charge Islamabad denies. It says it has nothing to do with the 22 April attacks.

In the two weeks since, both sides had taken tit-for-tat measures against each other – including expelling diplomats, suspending visas and closing border crossings.

But many expected it would escalate to some sort of cross-border strike – as seen after the Pulwama attacks which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead in 2019.

Kashmir is claimed in full by India and Pakistan, but administered only in part by each since they were partitioned following independence from Britain in 1947.

The countries have fought two wars over it.

But more recently, it has been attacks by militants which have brought the two countries to the brink. Indian-administered Kashmir has seen an armed insurgency against Indian rule since 1989, with militants targeting security forces and civilians alike.

This was the first major attack on civilians since India revoked Article 370 that gave Kashmir semi-autonomous status in 2019.

Following the decision, the region saw protests but also witnessed militancy wane and a huge increase in the number of tourists visiting the region.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Neither spiralled, but the wider world remains alert to the danger of what could happen if it did. Attempts have been made by various countries and diplomats around the world to stop the current situation escalating.

Already, UN chief Antonio Guterres has called for “maximum restraint”, while US President Donald Trump said he hoped the fighting “ends very quickly”.

Last week’s deadly militant attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, which claimed 26 civilian lives, has reignited a grim sense of déjà vu for India’s security forces and diplomats.

This is familiar ground. In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

And before that, the horrific 2008 Mumbai attacks – a 60-hour siege on hotels, a railway station, and a Jewish centre – claimed 166 lives.

Each time, India has held Pakistan-based militant groups responsible for the attacks, accusing Islamabad of tacitly supporting them – a charge Pakistan has consistently denied.

Since 2016, and especially after the 2019 airstrikes, the threshold for escalation has shifted dramatically. Cross-border and aerial strikes by India have become the new norm, provoking retaliation from Pakistan. This has further intensified an already volatile situation.

Once again, experts say, India finds itself walking the tightrope between escalation and restraint – a fragile balance of response and deterrence. One person who understands this recurring cycle is Ajay Bisaria, India’s former high commissioner to Pakistan during the Pulwama attack, who captured its aftermath in his memoir, Anger Management: The Troubled Diplomatic Relationship between India and Pakistan.

“There are striking parallels between the aftermath of the Pulwama bombing and the killings in Pahalgam,” Mr Bisaria told me on Thursday, 10 days after the latest attack.

Yet, he notes, Pahalgam marks a shift. Unlike Pulwama and Uri, which targeted security forces, this attack struck civilians – tourists from across India – evoking memories of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. “This attack carries elements of Pulwama, but much more of Mumbai,” he explains.

“We’re once again in a conflict situation, and the story is unfolding in much the same way,” Mr Bisaria says.

A week after the latest attack, Delhi moved quickly with retaliatory measures: closing the main border crossing, suspending a key water-sharing treaty, expelling diplomats, and halting most visas for Pakistani nationals – who were given days to leave. Troops on both sides have exchanged intermittent small-arms fire across the border in recent days.

Delhi also barred all Pakistani aircraft – commercial and military – from its airspace, mirroring Islamabad’s earlier move. Pakistan retaliated with its own visa suspensions and suspended a 1972 peace treaty with India. (Kashmir, claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but administered in parts by each, has been a flashpoint between the two nuclear-armed nations since their partition in 1947.)

In his memoir, Mr Bisaria recounts India’s response after the Pulwama attack on 14 February 2019.

He was summoned to Delhi the morning after, as the government moved quickly to halt trade – revoking Pakistan’s most-favoured-nation status, granted in 1996. In the following days, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) imposed a 200% customs duty on Pakistani goods, effectively ending imports, and suspended trade at the land border at Wagah.

Mr Bisaria notes that a broader set of measures was also proposed to scale down engagement with Pakistan, most of which were subsequently implemented.

They included suspending a cross-border train known as the Samjhauta Express, and a bus service linking Delhi and Lahore; deferring talks between border guards on both sides and negotiations over the historic Kartarpur corridor to one of Sikhism’s holiest shrines, halting visa issuance, ceasing cross border, banning Indian travel to Pakistan, and suspending flights between the two countries.

“How hard it was to build trust, I thought. And how easy was it to break it,” Mr Bisaria writes.

“All the confidence-building measures planned, negotiated, and implemented over years in this difficult relationship, could be slashed off on a yellow notepad in minutes.”

The strength of the Indian high commission in Islamabad was reduced from 110 to 55 only in June 2020 after a separate diplomatic incident. (It now stands at 30 after the Pahalgam attack.) India also launched a diplomatic offensive.

A day after the attack, then foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale briefed envoys from 25 countries – including the US, UK, China, Russia, and France – on the role of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), the Pakistan-based militant group behind the bombing, and accused Pakistan of using terrorism as state policy. JeM, designated a terrorist organisation by India, the UN, the UK, and the US, had claimed responsibility for the bombing.

India’s diplomatic offensive continued on 25 February, 10 days after the attack, pushing for JeM chief Masood Azhar‘s designation as a terrorist by the UN sanctions committee and inclusion on the EU’s “autonomous terror list”.

While there was pressure to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty – a key river water sharing agreement – India opted instead to withhold any data beyond treaty obligations, Mr Bisaria writes. A total of 48 bilateral agreements were reviewed for possible suspension. An all-party meeting was convened in Delhi, resulting in a unanimous resolution.

At the same time, communication channels remained open – including the hotline between the two countries’ Directors General of Military Operations (DGMO), a key link for military-to-military contact, as well as both high commissions. In 2019, as now, Pakistan said the attack was a “false-flag operation”.

Much like this time a crackdown in Kashmir saw the arrest of over 80 “overground workers” – local supporters who may have provided logistical help, shelter, and intelligence to militants from the Pakistan-based group. Rajnath Singh, then Indian home minister, visited Jammu and Kashmir, and dossiers on the attack and suspected perpetrators were prepared.

In a meeting with the external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj, Mr Bisaria told her that “that India’s diplomatic options in dealing with a terrorist attack of this nature was limited”.

“She gave me the impression that some tough action was round the corner, after which, I should expect the role of diplomacy to expand,” Mr Bisaria writes.

On 26 February, Indian airstrikes – its first across the international border since 1971 – targeted JeM’s training camp in Balakot.

Six hours later, the Indian foreign secretary announced the strikes had killed “a very large number” of militants and commanders. Pakistan swiftly denied the claim. More high-level meetings followed in Delhi.

The crisis escalated dramatically the next morning, 27 February, when Pakistan launched retaliatory air raids.

In the ensuing dogfight, an Indian fighter jet was shot down, and its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, ejected and landed in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Captured by Pakistani forces, his detention in enemy territory triggered a wave of national concern and further heightened tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

Mr Bisaria writes India activated multiple diplomatic channels, with US and UK envoys pressing Islamabad. The Indian message was “any attempt by Pakistan to escalate situation further or to cause harm to the pilot would lead to escalation by India.”

Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan announced the pilot’s release on 28 February, with the handover occurring on 1 March under prisoner of war protocol. Pakistan presented the move as a “goodwill gesture” aimed at de-escalating tensions.

By 5 March, with the dust settling from Pulwama, Balakot, and the pilot’s return, India’s political temperature had cooled. The Cabinet Committee on Security decided to send India’s high commissioner back to Pakistan, signalling a shift towards diplomacy.

“I arrived in Islamabad on 10 March, 22 days after leaving in the wake of Pulwama. The most serious military exchange since Kargil had run its course in less than a month,” Mr Bisaria writes,

“India was willing to give old-fashioned diplomacy another chance…. This, with India having achieved a strategic and military objective and Pakistan having claimed a notion of victory for its domestic audience.”

Mr Bisaria described it as a “testing and fascinating time” to be a diplomat. This time, he notes, the key difference is that the targets were Indian civilians, and the attack occurred “ironically, when the situation in Kashmir had dramatically improved”.

He views escalation as inevitable, but notes there’s also a “de-escalation instinct alongside the escalation instinct”. When the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meets during such conflicts, he says, their decisions weigh the conflict’s economic impact and seek measures that hurt Pakistan without triggering a backlash against India.

“The body language and optics are similar [this time],” he says, but highlights what he sees as the most significant move: India’s threat to annul the Indus Waters Treaty. “If India acts on this, it would have long-term, serious consequences for Pakistan.”

“Remember, we’re still in the middle of a crisis,” says Mr Bisaria. “We haven’t yet seen any kinetic [military] action.”

Will India be able to stop the Indus river and two of its tributaries from flowing into Pakistan?

That’s the question on many minds, after India suspended a major treaty governing water sharing of six rivers in the Indus basin between the two countries, following Tuesday’s horrific attack in Indian-administered Kashmir.

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) survived two wars between the nuclear rivals and was seen as an example of trans-boundary water management.

The suspension is among several steps India has taken against Pakistan, accusing it of backing cross-border terrorism – a charge Islamabad flatly denies. It has also hit back with reciprocal measures against Delhi, and said stopping water flow “will be considered as an Act of War”.

The treaty allocated the three eastern rivers – the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – of the Indus basin to India, while 80% of the three western ones – the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – to Pakistan.

Disputes have flared in the past, with Pakistan objecting to some of India’s hydropower and water infrastructure projects, arguing they would reduce river flows and violate the treaty. (More than 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture and around a third of its hydropower depend on the Indus basin’s water.)

India, meanwhile, has been pushing to review and modify the treaty, citing changing needs – from irrigation and drinking water to hydropower – in light of factors like climate change.

Over the years, Pakistan and India have pursued competing legal avenues under the treaty brokered by the World Bank.

But this is the first time either side has announced a suspension – and notably, it’s the upstream country, India, giving it a geographic advantage.

But what does the suspension really mean? Could India hold back or divert the Indus basin’s waters, depriving Pakistan of its lifeline? And is it even capable of doing so?

Experts say it’s nearly impossible for India to hold back tens of billions of cubic metres of water from the western rivers during high-flow periods. It lacks both the massive storage infrastructure and the extensive canals needed to divert such volumes.

“The infrastructure India has are mostly run-of-the-river hydropower plants that do not need massive storage,” said Himanshu Thakkar, a regional water resources expert with the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People.

Such hydropower plants use the force of running water to spin turbines and generate electricity, without holding back large volumes of water.

Indian experts say inadequate infrastructure has kept India from fully utilising even its 20% share of the Jhelum, Chenab and Indus waters under the treaty – a key reason they argue for building storage structures, which Pakistan opposes citing treaty provisions.

Experts say India can now modify existing infrastructure or build new ones to hold back or divert more water without informing Pakistan.

“Unlike in the past, India will now not be required to share its project documents with Pakistan,” said Mr Thakkar.

But challenges like difficult terrain and protests within India itself over some of its projects have meant that construction of water infrastructure in the Indus basin has not moved fast enough.

After a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in 2016, Indian water resources ministry officials had told the BBC they would speed up construction of several dams and water storage projects in the Indus basin.

Although there is no official information on the status of such projects, sources say progress has been limited.

Some experts say that if India begins controlling the flow with its existing and potential infrastructure, Pakistan could feel the impact during the dry season, when water availability is already at its lowest.

“A more pressing concern is what happens in the dry season – when the flows across the basin are lower, storage matters more, and timing becomes more critical,” Hassan F Khan, assistant professor of Urban Environmental Policy and Environmental Studies at Tufts University, wrote in the Dawn newspaper.

“That is where the absence of treaty constraints could start to be felt more acutely.”

The treaty requires India to share hydrological data with Pakistan – crucial for flood forecasting and planning for irrigation, hydropower and drinking water.

Pradeep Kumar Saxena, India’s former IWT commissioner for over six years, told the Press Trust of India news agency that the country can now stop sharing flood data with Pakistan.

The region sees damaging floods during the monsoon season, which begins in June and lasts until September. But Pakistani authorities have said India was already sharing very limited hydrological data.

“India was sharing only around 40% of the data even before it made the latest announcement,” Shiraz Memon, Pakistan’s former additional commissioner of the Indus Waters Treaty, told BBC Urdu.

Another issue that comes up each time there is water-related tension in the region is if the upstream country can “weaponise” water against the downstream country.

This is often called a “water bomb”, where the upstream country can temporarily hold back water and then release it suddenly, without warning, causing massive damage downstream.

Could India do that?

Experts say India would first risk flooding its own territory as its dams are far from the Pakistan border. However, it could now flush silt from its reservoirs without prior warning – potentially causing damage downstream in Pakistan.

• How water shortages are brewing wars

Himalayan rivers like the Indus carry high silt levels, which quickly accumulate in dams and barrages. Sudden flushing of this silt can cause significant downstream damage.

There’s a bigger picture: India is downstream of China in the Brahmaputra basin, and the Indus originates in Tibet.

In 2016, after India warned that “blood and water cannot flow together” following a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir which India blamed on Pakistan, China blocked a tributary of the Yarlung Tsangpo – that becomes the Brahmaputra in northeast India.

China, that has Pakistan as its ally, said they had done it as it was needed for a hydropower project they were building near the border. But the timing of the move was seen as Beijing coming in to help Islamabad.

After building several hydropower plants in Tibet, China has green-lit what will be the world’s largest dam on the lower reaches of Yarlung Tsangpo.

Beijing claims minimal environmental impact, but India fears it could give China significant control over the river’s flow.

Joe Biden has told the BBC that pressure from the Trump administration on Ukraine to give up territory to Russia is “modern-day appeasement” in an exclusive interview, his first since leaving the White House.

Speaking in Delaware on Monday, he said Russian President Vladimir Putin believed Ukraine was part of Russia and “anybody that thinks he’s going to stop” if some territory is conceded as part of a peace deal “is just foolish”.

Biden, who spoke as Allied nations mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day this week, said he was concerned about US-Europe relations breaking down under President Donald Trump, which he said “would change the modern history of the world”.

In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Biden was challenged on his own record on Ukraine as well as his decision to end his 2024 re-election bid late in the race after a stumbling debate performance stoked concerns over his fitness and plunged the Democratic Party into crisis.

Biden dropped out less than four months before the November election, and when pushed on whether he should have left sooner and allowed more time for a replacement to be chosen, he said: “I don’t think it would have mattered. We left at a time when we had a good candidate.”

“Things moved so quickly that it made it difficult to walk away. And it was a hard decision,” he said. “I think it was the right decision. I think that… it was just a difficult decision.”

Asked about the current administration’s treatment of US allies, the former president condemned Trump’s calls for the US to take back the Panama Canal, to acquire Greenland and to make Canada the 51st state.

“What the hell’s going on here? What president ever talks like that? That’s not who we are,” he said. “We’re about freedom, democracy, opportunity, not about confiscation.”

• Joe Biden on Trump: ‘What president ever talks like that? That’s not who we are’

On Ukraine, Biden was challenged on whether he gave enough support to Kyiv to ensure they could win the war as opposed to just resist Russia’s full-scale invasion. During three years of fighting, his White House shifted its position on the use of US-supplied weapons and lifted some restrictions over time.

“We gave them everything they needed to provide for their independence, and we were prepared to respond, more aggressively, if Putin moved again,” he said.

Biden was also asked about comments from the Trump administration suggesting Kyiv must give up some territory in order to secure a peace deal that would put an end to fighting.

US Vice-President JD Vance recently laid out the US vision for a peace plan in Ukraine, saying it would “freeze the territorial lines… close to where they are today”.

He said Ukraine and Russia “are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own”. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has echoed that message, saying a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “unrealistic”.

“It is modern-day appeasement,” Biden said on Monday, a reference to the policy of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who sought in the late 1930s to appease Adolf Hitler’s demands in a failed attempt to avoid a catastrophic all-out war in Europe.

He also expressed concern that “Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America and the leadership of America”.

The continent’s leaders, he added, were “wondering, well, what do I do now?… Can I rely on the United States? Are they going to be there?”

Trump has said he expects Russia to keep the Crimean peninsula, which was illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014, and last month he accused Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky of harming peace negotiations when Zelensky rejected the suggestion.

Reports suggest recent US proposals for a truce settlement not only include formal US recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, but also de facto US recognition of Russian control of other occupied areas in Ukraine. The White House has not publicly confirmed the details.

“I have no favourites. I don’t want to have any favourites. I want to have a deal done,” Trump said last month when asked about recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea.

“Yes, of course, [the Ukrainians] are angry that they were invaded,” VP Vance told Fox News last week. “But are we going to continue to lose thousands and thousands of soldiers over a few miles of territory this or that way?”

The pressure to cede land is not just coming from Washington, with the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, telling the BBC last month that Ukraine may have to temporarily give up territory.

Discussing Putin, Biden said: “I just don’t understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to decide he’s going to take significant portions of land that aren’t his, that that’s going to satisfy him. I don’t quite understand.”

He also said he feared some countries in the Nato alliance that border Russia may “just say we’ve got to make an accommodation” to Putin if Ukraine ultimately gives up land.

Trump has long resisted continuing the level of US military support that Biden gave to Ukraine, arguing that his ultimate aim is to end the bloodshed. He has previously said Zelensky played Biden “like a fiddle”.

Tensions between the White House and the Ukrainian leader exploded into public view in February, when Trump and Vance berated Zelensky and demanded he show more gratitude for years of US support during an extraordinary televised meeting in the Oval Office.

“I found it sort of beneath America in the way that took place,” Biden said of the meeting.

Trump and his top officials have repeatedly criticised European countries for not spending enough on their own defence and relying too heavily on US support.

The US is by some margin the largest single donor to Ukraine, but European countries combined have spent more money, according to the Kiel Institute, a German-based think tank tracking support for Kyiv.

“I don’t understand how they fail to understand that there’s strength in alliances,” Biden said of the Trump administration on Monday. “There’s benefits… It saves us money overall.”

When asked about President Trump’s first 100 days in office, which has seen a whirlwind of executive actions as well as sweeping cuts to the size and spending of the federal government, Biden touted his own record and sought to draw a stark contrast between when he left office and now.

“Our economy was growing. We were moving in a direction where the stock market was way up. We were in a situation where we were expanding our influence around the world in a positive way, increasing trade” he said of state of the country when he left the White House in January.

Trump, meanwhile, says he is driving a needed overhaul of the world’s relationship with the US, rebalancing trade, controlling illegal immigration and making government more efficient. He celebrated the 100-day milestone with a triumphant speech last week. What does Biden make of the start to Trump 2.0?

“I’ll let history judge that,” he said. “I don’t see anything that was triumphant.”

The government will make it a crime to climb on Winston Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, it will be announced today.

Offenders could face up to three months in prison and a £1,000 fine for desecrating the monument to Britain’s wartime leader.

The Churchill statue is not officially classified as one of the UK’s war memorials, but Home Secretary Yvette Cooper plans to add it to the list of statues and monuments which it will soon become a criminal offence to climb.

These will include the Cenotaph in Whitehall, the Royal Artillery Memorial in Hyde Park, and many other famous structures across Britain commemorating the service of the armed forces in the First and Second World Wars.

The new law is contained in the flagship Crime and Policing Bill currently progressing through Parliament.

Announcing Churchill’s addition to the list of protected memorials, Cooper said: “As the country comes together to celebrate VE Day, it is only right that we ensure Winston Churchill’s statue is treated with the respect it deserves, along with the other sacred war memorials around our country.”

Churchill was said to have personally picked the spot where he wanted his statue to stand when approving plans for the redevelopment of Parliament Square in the 1950s.

The bronze, 12-foot statue of the former prime minister was unveiled in Westminster Square in November 1973 by his widow Clementine, eight years after her husband’s death.

Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mother were in attendance at the ceremony.

Giving his backing to the new protection, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: “Sir Winston Churchill stands at the summit of our country’s greatest heroes, and has been an inspiration to every prime minister that has followed him.

“The justifiable fury that is provoked when people use his statue as a platform for their protests speaks to the deep and enduring love that all decent British people have for Sir Winston.

“It is the least we owe him, and the rest of the greatest generation, to make those acts criminal.”

In recent years, the statue has become a regular target for demonstrators.

In 2014, a man was arrested after spending 48 hours on the statue plinth as part of Occupy Democracy protests in Westminster, but was subsequently acquitted of all charges.

The statue was infamously sprayed with red paint and adorned with a green turf Mohican during May Day protests in 2000, for which the perpetrator received a 30-day jail sentence.

The statue was also daubed with graffiti during Extinction Rebellion demonstrations in 2020, for which an 18-year-old protester was given a £200 fine and told to pay £1,200 in compensation.

During the Black Lives Matter protests earlier that year, the statue was again sprayed with graffiti, and was eventually boarded up and ringed by police officers to protect it from demonstrators.

Most recently, trans rights campaigners who occupied Parliament Square in late April in protest at the Supreme Court decision on the legal definition of a woman, climbed the Churchill statue and waved placards from its plinth, as well as daubing slogans on other statues in the square.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

US and Chinese officials are set to start talks this week to try to deescalate a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will attend the talks in Switzerland from 9 to 12 May, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer will represent Washington at the meeting, their offices announced.

Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has imposed new import taxes on Chinese goods of up to 145%. Beijing has hit back with levies on some goods from the US of 125%.

But global trade experts have told the BBC that they expect negotiations to take several months.

It will be the first high-level interaction between the two countries since Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng attended Trump’s inauguration in January.

Mr Bessent said he looked forward to rebalancing the international economic system to better serve the interests of the US.

“My sense is that this will be about de-escalation, not about the big trade deal, but we’ve got to de-escalate before we can move forward,” he said in an interview with Fox News.

“If the United States wants to resolve the issue through negotiations, it must face up to the serious negative impact of unilateral tariff measures on itself and the world,” a Chinese commerce ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday morning.

Chinese state media reported that Beijing had decided to engage with the US after fully considering global expectations, the country’s interests and appeals from American businesses.

The report added that China is open to talks but reiterated that if the country decides to continue to fight this trade war – it will fight to the end.

The trade war has triggered turmoil in financial markets and sent shockwaves across global trade.

Two trade experts told the BBC that they were not particularly optimistic about the talks, at least in the initial phase.

“You have to start somewhere, so I’m not saying it isn’t worthwhile. Just unlikely to be the launch event people are hoping to see,” said Deborah Elms, Head of Trade Policy at the Hinrich Foundation.

“We should expect to see a lot of back and forth, just like what happened last time in 2018,” Henry Gao, Professor of Law at Singapore Management University and a former Chinese lawyer on the World Trade Organization secretariat said.

“I would expect the talks to drag on for several months or even more than a year”.

Financial markets in mainland China and Hong Kong rose on Wednesday as investors reacted to the news as well as announcements by Chinese authorities of measures to support the economy.

US stock futures were also higher. Futures are contracts to buy or sell an underlying asset at a future date and are an indication of how markets will trade when they open.

Investors are also waiting for the US central bank to make its latest announcement on interest rates on Wednesday afternoon.

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.

The UK and India have agreed a trade deal that will make it easier for UK firms to export whisky, cars and other products to India, and cut taxes on India’s clothing and footwear exports.

The British government said the “landmark” agreement, which took three years to reach, did not include any change in immigration policy, including towards Indian students studying in the UK.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the deal would boost the economy and “deliver for British people and business”.

Last year, trade between the UK and India totalled £42.6bn and was already forecast to grow, but the government said the deal would boost that trade by an additional £25.5bn a year by 2040.

• India trade deal could undercut UK business, opposition parties say

India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, described the agreement as an historic milestone that was “ambitious and mutually beneficial”.

The pact would help “catalyse trade, investment, growth, job creation, and innovation in both our economies”, he said in a post on social media platform X.

Once it comes into force, which could take up to a year, UK consumers are likely to benefit from the reduction in tariffs on goods coming into the country from India, the Department for Business and Trade said.

That includes lower tariffs on:

• clothing and footwear
• cars
• foodstuffs including frozen prawns
• jewellery and gems

The government also emphasised the benefit to economic growth and job creation from UK firms expanding exports to India.

UK exports that will see levies fall include:

• gin and whisky
• aerospace, electricals and medical devices
• cosmetics
• lamb, salmon, chocolates and biscuits
• higher value cars

The British government said the deal was the “biggest and most economically significant” bilateral trade agreement the UK had signed since leaving the European Union in 2020.

UK Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the benefits for UK businesses and consumers were “massive”.

Tariffs on gin and whisky, a key sticking point in negotiations previously, will be halved to 75%, with further reductions taking effect in later years.

Tariffs of 100% on more expensive UK-made cars exported to India will fall to 10%, subject to a quota limiting the total number.

The deal also includes provisions on the services sector and procurement allowing British firms to compete for more contracts.

Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers will also gain from a three-year exemption from social security payments, which the Indian government called “an unprecedented achievement”.

The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and to UK firms’ workers transferred to India. Social security contributions will be paid by employers and employees in their home country only, rather than in both places.

The UK already has similar reciprocal “double contribution convention” agreements with 17 other countries including the EU, the US and South Korea, the government said.

However, leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch described the agreement as “two-tier taxes from two-tier Keir”, with Labour’s increase in employer NI contributions from the Budget coming into force last month.

Shadow trade secretary Andrew Griffith said: “Every time Labour negotiates, Britain loses”.

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said it was “very worrying to hear concerns that Indian workers coming over here, companies may not have to pay taxes on those workers” and called for MPs to be allowed to vote on the deal.

The government said the National Insurance exemption would not affect NHS funding, since Indians working in the UK would still be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.

India, currently the fifth largest economy in the world, is forecast to become the third-largest within a few years, making it a desirable trading partner for the UK, currently the world’s sixth largest economy.

The UK is also a high priority trading partner for Prime Minister Modi’s government, which has an ambitious target to increase exports by $1 trillion by 2030.

The deal is a win for free trade at a time when US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff campaign has put the idea on the defensive and raised fears of tit-for-tat trade wars.

It appears to have increased the impetus to strike this trade deal.

Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of business lobby group, the CBI, welcomed the deal saying it provided a “beacon of hope amidst the spectre of protectionism” following Trump’s wave of tariffs.

UK businesses saw “myriad” opportunities in the Indian market, she added.

Allie Renison, from communications firm SEC Newgate, and a former government trade adviser, said the deal was potentially “transformational” due to India’s size, growth rate and relatively high existing barriers to accessing its market.

The Vatican’s Santa Marta guesthouse has 128 rooms. From 7 May, it will be filled with cardinals participating in the conclave to elect the next Pope. But one room in the guesthouse is still sealed with a red ribbon, as it has been since its occupant died there on Easter Monday.

That suite will only be reopened when the new pope is chosen. The ribbon remains a tangible reminder of the man whose shoes the cardinals are looking to fill – but Pope Francis’ presence looms large over this conclave in many profound ways.

He spent 12 years in the role and appointed around 80% of the cardinals who will select his successor. He also looked to radically shake up the workings of the Catholic Church, moving its centre of gravity away from its hierarchy at the Vatican in the direction of the rank-and-file faithful all over the world, and focused on the poor and marginalised.

My conversations with cardinals and those assessing the needs of the Church in the days leading to this papal election almost always end up looking at what is required through the prism of what Pope Francis did in the role.

While in recent days there appears to have been a growing coalescence around the idea that Francis’ work should be built on, some of his critics remain far from convinced. So might there be enough of them to sway the vote as the Church attempts to reconcile the different outlooks and realities it faces around the globe?

During the two weeks that followed the Pope’s death, the cardinals met almost daily at the Vatican for pre-conclave gatherings known as general congregations.

While the conclave in the Sistine Chapel is limited to cardinals who haven’t yet reached the age of 80 (133 will participate in this one), these preliminary meetings are open to all 252 cardinals. Each attendee was given up to five minutes to air their views, though we know that some took longer.

It was during such a meeting ahead of the last conclave of 2013, in a speech lasting less than four minutes, that Pope Francis – then known as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina – made an impact, talking of a need to connect with those in the far reaches of the Catholic world.

As Pope, he made a conscious drive to appoint cardinals from such places. It is why this is the most diverse conclave there has ever been. For the first time Cape Verde, Haiti, South Sudan, Tonga, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea and Rwanda will be represented.

That diversity has already made its mark: the pre-conclave meetings are said to have brought to the fore just how different the needs of the Church appear to be depending on where in the world they are viewed.

In Europe, for example, a primary consideration for some might be finding ways to reinvigorate and make relevant the mission of the Church in the face of shrinking congregations, whereas elsewhere – in African or Asian countries – concerns may revolve around social issues, poverty and conflict resolution.

A prospective pope is likely to be one who has at least shown recognition of those very different realities.

The official titles that the new pope will inherit gives a sense of the breadth of the role: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City among them.

While some relate to the deeply spiritual, the last of those titles suggests the need for a statesman too, given that the pope is leader of a country, albeit the world’s smallest.

“Unlike your average state, the agenda of the Vatican is driven to an extent by where the pope reigning at the time puts their emphasis,” says Chris Trott, British ambassador to the Holy See. “On the face of it a very tiny state, [but it is] one that punches many, many times above its weight.

“And Pope Francis had 50 million followers on Twitter, so [it is] a very, very small state and an incredible global influencer.”

Pope Francis chose to amplify this part of the role, becoming a powerful global spokesman on behalf of those on the margins, including the poor and victims of war.

He also tried to play the role of peacemaker, though not everyone thought he was successful in that regard, in relation to China and Russia in particular.

According to Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the most senior Catholic figure in England and Wales, this expansion of the role is one reason so many even outside the faith are invested in the outcome of the conclave.

“There is a sense that the Pope in the person of Pope Francis became a figure who addressed everybody in the world… religious people and even those who do not have a religious affiliation,” he says.

“I’m more and more aware that it’s not just Catholics who are interested in this.”

For many voting cardinals, it is primarily issues within the Catholic Church that are under the spotlight, which brings about the question of the type of pope they want as a manager, and someone who runs the Church’s administrative body and its ministries.

While Pope Francis worked on improving the way the Church deals with the huge issues of sexual abuse and of financial corruption, it is his successor who will have to ensure that reforms are evenly applied across the Catholic world.

Even supporters of Pope Francis’ efforts to make changes to the way the Church relates to its rank-and-file believers, and the way he built bridges with those outside the faith, were sometimes left confused about how exactly he envisioned things should work.

Pope Francis changed the tone on social issues through comments he made, talking openly about subjects ranging from climate change to financial transparency within the Vatican. But throughout his papacy, some were unclear about what he meant or how it would be applied.

One mission he had was to take some of the power and decision-making away from the Vatican hierarchy and into the hands of rank-and-file Catholics.

Over nearly four years, at great effort, he commissioned what was, in effect, a poll of many of the world’s Catholics to find out what mattered to them. Lay people were invited to participate in the most recent bishop’s conference where the results of the survey were discussed.

The biggest issues raised related to greater roles for women in the running of the church and welcoming LGBT+ Catholics. But the meeting ended in some confusion, with little in the form of tangible steps forward and little clarity as to how lay people will help steer the future direction of the Church.

So, there is a general keenness for greater clarity from the new pope.

Throughout his pontificate, some vocal traditionalists opposed what they saw as Pope Francis straying from Church teaching and long-standing tradition.

In the pre-conclave meetings of cardinals, a number of those over the age of 80 (who because of their age would not be involved in voting) took the opportunity to play their part.

Most contributions remained secret, but one that was reported was that of 83-year-old Italian cardinal, Beniamino Stella. He criticised Pope Francis for “imposing his own ideas” by attempting to move Church governance away from the clergy.

And yet during the homily, or religious speech, at Pope Francis’ funeral, what appeared to resonate with the public in attendance – judging by the volume of the applause – was talk of the themes Francis chose to champion: the dignity of migrants, an end to war, and the environment.

This applause would have been heard loud and clear by the rows of cardinals.

In some senses, Pope Francis did have clarity in focusing on the Church being relevant to people in their daily lives and, indeed, their struggles. He was clear about connecting with the world outside the faith too.

“There is a sense that in the voice of the pope, there’s a voice of something that is needed,” says Cardinal Nichols. “For some people it’s a moral compass, for some people it’s the sense of being accepted, for some people it’s the insistence that we must look at things from the point of view of the poorest.

“That’s a voice that has fallen silent and our task is to find someone who can carry that forward.”

From the death of Pope Francis to the moment cardinals checked into the Santa Marta guesthouse and its overflow residences, there appeared to be a trend towards a desire for continuity of what Pope Francis had achieved.

Though perhaps that vision of continuity is one that could bring along more of his sceptics, in a way that was pragmatic. The word “unity” has been talked of a lot, after a period where the divides between supporters and detractors of the Pope’s vision could sometimes become ugly.

But in the end, when they step into the Sistine Chapel, the holiest of voting chambers, for all the pragmatism they may have taken into consideration before they cast their ballot, they will be urged to let God and the Holy Spirit guide them.

Five Venezuelan political figures holed up at the Argentinian Embassy in Caracas to avoid arrest have been brought to the US after a “successful rescue” mission, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.

“The US welcomes the successful rescue of all hostages held by the Maduro regime at the Argentinian Embassy in Caracas,” Rubio wrote in a post on X. “Following a precise operation, all hostages are now safely on US soil.”

Venezuelan forces had surrounded the embassy since last year, where the five politicians opposed to President Nicolás Maduro had been taking refuge.

Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said she was thankful “to all those who made it possible”.

Machado hailed their escape as “an impeccable and epic operation for the freedom of five heroes”.

They were given permission to stay there by the government of Argentine President Javier Milei, whose country is among several that have disputed the results of Venezuela’s last election in July that gave Maduro a third term.

The Argentine foreign ministry thanked Rubio and the US government “for the successful operation that secured the freedom of the Venezuelan asylum seekers at our Embassy in Caracas”.

Last year, the opposition figures posted images and videos of officers from the country’s intelligence service surrounding the embassy complex, saying they were under “siege”.

They also accused the Venezuelan government of cutting electricity and water services to the compound.

The Venezuelan government said at the time that it had been forced to take action after it supposedly uncovered evidence of “terrorist activities and assassination attempts” against Maduro and his deputy.

In November, the US called the security operations outside the embassy a serious violation of international law.

“We demand that the Venezuelan regime respect its international obligations, cease these intimidating actions and guarantee safe passage for asylum seekers,” the US embassy in Venezuela said at the time.

Rubio did not confirm the names of those who were rescued, but the five opposition members who had been sheltering at the Argentine embassy are Magalli Meda, Pedro Urruchurtu, Omar Gonzalez, Humberto Villalobos and Claudia Macero.

It is unclear how the five managed to leave the compound, and what role the US played in their escape.

The embassy they sheltered in had been represented and guarded by Brazil since diplomatic relations between Argentina and Venezuela broke down last summer due to the outcome of Venezuela’s presidential election.

But in September, the Venezuelan government revoked Brazil’s custody of the embassy in an apparent attempt to remove its diplomatic protection.

Mark Carney has told Donald Trump that Canada “is not for sale” as the president raised the prospect of the country becoming the 51st US state while welcoming the prime minister to the White House.

Carney won the election last month promising to “stand up” to Trump, who has imposed tariffs on some Canadian products and sometimes talks about annexing the country.

The former central banker responded with a firm but measured tone after the president proposed a “wonderful marriage” of incorporating Canada into the US.

Despite a strained relationship recently between the once-close neighbours, the two men also lavished praise on each other in what was a largely cordial Oval Office meeting.

Trump has imposed general tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico and sector-specific import taxes on cars, some of which have been suspended pending negotiations.

The US president, who accuses Canada of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl south, has levied similar duties on steel and aluminium.

Tuesday’s meeting was the first time the two had met since Carney won Canada’s general election on 28 April, a victory many have credited to concerns in that country about Trump.

• Live updates from Carney-Trump meeting

But the two leaders began with warm words, with Trump describing Carney as “a very talented person”.

He also hailed his guest’s election win as “one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics, maybe even greater than mine”.

Carney said Trump was a “transformational president”, with “a relentless focus on the American worker, securing your border, and securing the world” and said he had “revitalised” Nato.

But friction arose when Trump again argued that Canada would be better off as part of the US.

Carney came prepared with a carefully worded response.

“As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale,” he told property magnate Trump, likening Canada to the Oval Office itself and to Britain’s Buckingham Palace.

“Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign in the last several months, it’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale, ever.”

Trump replied: “Never say never.”

The US leader traced his own red line when a journalist in the Oval Office asked if Carney could say anything to persuade him to lift tariffs.

“No,” he replied. “It’s just the way it is.”

“This was a very friendly conversation,” he added. “But we want to make our own cars.”

Trump once again argued that the US was subsidising Canada’s military and did not need Canadian goods such as aluminium and steel.

He said he and Carney would discuss “tough points” at their meeting, but “regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada”.

Trump also criticised his visitor’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, with whom he had an adversarial relationship.

Still, he said the meeting with Carney was in stark contrast to another recent Oval Office “blow-up” – a reference to a disastrous visit from Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky in February.

Notably, Trump also downplayed the prospect of trade deals, even though his administration has repeatedly pointed to the over 80 countries the White House says are hoping to negotiate as a sign of progress.

“Everyone says, ‘When, when, when are you going to sign deals?,” Trump said. “We don’t have to sign deals, they have to sign deals with us. They want a piece of our market. We don’t want a piece of their market.”

Carney said that he “pressed the case” to Trump on lifting tariffs, and found him to be “willing to have that negotiation”.

“I think that’s the main thing. That doesn’t presuppose the outcome of the negotiation,” Carney added at a news conference at the Canadian embassy in Washington DC. “There’ll be zigs and zags. Difficult aspects to it. But the prospect is there.”

Carney did not speculate on timing, saying only that both leaders and their teams would speak again in the coming weeks.

Additionally, Carney said he again asked that Trump stopped calling for Canada to become a US state. He added that he believed it important to distinguish between “wish and reality”.

“He’s the president. He’s his own person,” Carney said. “He understands that we’re having a negotiation between sovereign nations.”

During Canada’s election campaign, Carney argued he was the leader who could fight Trump’s “betrayal”, as well as push back against US threats to Canada’s economy and sovereignty.

In his victory speech, the Liberal leader went as far as to say that the formerly tight US-Canadian relationship was “over” and that Canadians must “fundamentally re-imagine our economy” in the Trump era.

More than $760bn (£570bn) in goods flowed between Canada and the US last year. Canada is the US’ second-largest individual trading partner after Mexico, and the largest export market for US goods.

The younger half brother of US vice-president JD Vance will face off with the Democratic incumbent in Cincinnati’s mayoral race in November, after finishing second in a primary on Tuesday.

Cory Bowman, 36, who shares a father with the vice-president, is running as a Republican in the Ohio city.

The political newcomer received an endorsement earlier on Tuesday from Vance, who wrote on X that Bowman is “a good guy with a heart for serving his community.”

Bowman, a pastor at an evangelical church in Cincinnati, will now run against current mayor Aftab Pureval in November’s general election.

Results indicate he received around 13% of the vote in Tuesday’s primary, well below Pureval who got around 83%.

But it was enough to have Bowman finish second ahead of another Republican candidate, Brian Frank. The two candidates with the most votes go on to run for mayor in the fall.

Bowman, who also co-owns a coffee shop in Cincinnati, said he was inspired to run after attending Trump and Vance’s inauguration.

But he has told the Associated Press that his political journey is separate from his brother’s.

“As far as the relationship with JD, I tell people he’s my brother, he’s not a political counsellor to me,” Bowman said. “He is not somebody that planted me here in this city.”

“There was nobody that pushed me into it, nobody that told me that this is a pathway I should go,” he added. “But I just thought this would be a great way to help impact the city in another realm as well, because that’s always been the focus.”

The Republican has campaigned on removing Cincinnati’s designation as a sanctuary city – a term used for cities that shield migrants from federal law enforcement. He also has spoken about tackling “financial corruption” and bolstering safety.

Despite the notoriety of his older brother, political watchers note that November’s race will be uphill for Bowman.

Cincinnati has traditionally been run by Democratic mayors, making it a difficult campaign for any Republican. The city has not elected a Republican mayor in over 50 years.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told Israelis that “we are on the eve of an intense entry into Gaza.” Israel would, he said, capture territory and hold it: “They will not enter and come out.”

The new offensive is calculated, according to the spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Brigadier-General Effie Defrin, to bring back the remaining hostages. After that, he told Israeli radio, “comes the collapse of the Hamas regime, its defeat, its submission”.

The offensive will not start, Israel says, until after Donald Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar next week. Assuming Trump does not dissuade Israel from going ahead, Israel will need a military and political miracle to pull off the results described by Brig-Gen Defrin.

It is more likely that the offensive will sharpen everything that makes the Gaza war so controversial. The war, starting with the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, has taken the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis to a point as dangerous as any in its long history. Prolonging the war divides Israelis, kills even more Palestinian civilians and horrifies millions around the world, including many who describe themselves as friends of Israel.

While the IDF attacks Hamas in Gaza, the government’s plan is that its soldiers will force some or all of the more than two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza into a small area in the ruins of the south. Humanitarian aid would be distributed, perhaps by contractors including American private security firms. The United Nations humanitarian agencies have said they will not cooperate, condemning the plan as a violation of the principles of humanitarian aid.

They have also warned of starvation in Gaza caused by Israel’s decision more than two months ago to block all humanitarian deliveries. Israel’s blockade, which continues, has been widely condemned, not just by the UN and Arab countries.

Now, Britain and the European Union both say they are against a new Israeli offensive. A fortnight ago, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, all allies of Israel who regard Hamas as a terrorist group, warned that the “intolerable” blockade put Palestinian civilians, including one million children, at “an acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death”.

The ministers also warned, implicitly, that their ally was violating international law.

“Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool and Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change”, they insisted. “Israel is bound under international law to allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian aid.”

Israel denies it violates international humanitarian law and the laws of war in Gaza. But at the same time its own ministers’ words suggest otherwise. One of many examples: the defence minister Israel Katz has described the blockade as a “main pressure lever” against Hamas. That sounds like an admission that the blockade is a weapon, even though it starves civilians, which amounts to a war crime.

Countries and organisations that believe Israel systematically violates its legal obligations, committing a series of war crimes, will scour any new offensive for more evidence. Extreme language used by ministers will have been noted by the South African lawyers arguing the case at the International Court of Justice alleging Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Much of it has come from ultra-nationalists who prop up the Netanyahu government. They see the new offensive as another step towards expelling Palestinians from Gaza and replacing them with Jewish settlers.

One of the most vocal extremists, Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister said that in six months Gaza would be “totally destroyed”. Palestinians in the territory would be “despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places”.

“Relocation”, the word used by Smotrich, will be seen both by his supporters and political enemies as another reference to “transfer”, an idea discussed since the earliest days of Zionism to force Arabs out of the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

Netanyahu’s Israeli critics say prolonging the war with a new offensive instead of ending it with a ceasefire is about his own political survival, not Israel’s safety or the return of its hostages. In the days after the 7 October attacks there were lines of cars hurriedly parked outside military bases as Israelis rushed to volunteer for reserve duty to fight Hamas.

Now thousands of them (some estimates from the Israeli left are higher) are refusing to do any more reserve duty. They argue the prime minister is continuing the war because if he doesn’t his hard right will bring down the government and bring on the day of reckoning for mistakes and miscalculations Netanyahu made that gave Hamas an opportunity to attack.

Inside Israel, the sharpest criticism of the planned offensive has come from the families of the hostages who fear they have been abandoned by the government that claims to be rescuing them. Hamas still has 24 living hostages in the Gaza Strip, according to Israel, and is holding the bodies of another 35 of the 251 taken on 7 October. The Netanyahu government has claimed repeatedly that only as much military pressure as possible will get the survivors home and return the bodies of the dead to their families.

In reality, the biggest releases of hostages have come during ceasefires. The last ceasefire deal, which Trump insisted Israel sign in the final days of the Biden administration, included a planned second phase which was supposed to lead to the release of all the hostages and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

Netanyahu’s extremist allies told him they would bring down his government if he agreed to a second phase of the ceasefire. First, Israel blocked humanitarian aid to put pressure, it said, on Hamas to agree to a renegotiated deal that would give Israel the option of going back to war even after the hostages were released. When Hamas refused, Israel went on the offensive again with a massive air attack on the night of 18 March.

Since then, Israel has put unrelenting pressure on Palestinians in Gaza. A new offensive will kill many more Palestinian civilians, deepen the misery of the survivors and bereaved inside Gaza and widen the toxic rifts within Israel. On its own, without a ceasefire deal, it is unlikely on past form to force Hamas to free the remaining hostages.

The carnage inflicted by Israel inside Gaza has been a recruiting sergeant for Hamas and other armed groups, according to President Joe Biden’s administration just before it left office in January of this year. It is worth repeating the words used by Biden’s secretary of state, Antony Blinken, in a speech in Washington on 14 January.

“We assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost,” Blinken said. “That is a recipe for an enduring insurgency and perpetual war.”

When he spoke, Israel was claiming that it had killed around 18,000 Palestinian fighters inside Gaza. More have been killed since then, and many more civilians.

Israel’s massive onslaught broke the back of Hamas as a structured military organisation more than a year ago. Now Israel faces an insurgency, which history shows can go for as long as recruits are prepared to fight and die to beat their enemy.

Donald Trump said the US would stop attacking the Houthis in Yemen because the group had “capitulated”, as Oman confirmed a “ceasefire” had been reached with the Iran-backed group for it to stop targeting shipping in the Red Sea.

“[The Houthis] just don’t want to fight, and we will honour that and we will stop the bombings, and they have capitulated,” he said, speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the White House.

Shortly afterwards the Omani foreign minister posted that the deal meant neither side would target the other, “ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping”.

The Houthis have yet to comment.

The US stepped up air strikes on the Houthis in March and the US military says it has struck 1,000 targets in Yemen since then.

Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump said the Houthis would “not be blowing up ships anymore”.

“The Houthis have announced that they are not, or they announced to us at least, that they don’t want to fight anymore… but, more importantly, we will take their word.

“They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore and that’s what the purpose of what we were doing… so that’s just news we just found out about that.”

Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said his country had mediated efforts to achieve de-escalation.

“In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping” he said.

The Houthis began attacking shipping passing through the Red Sea in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza, who have been under bombardment by the Israeli military since the Palestinian armed group Hamas attacked Israeli communities in October 2023.

They have launched dozens of missile and drone attacks on commercial ships, sinking two vessels, seizing a third and killing four crew members. The attacks forced even major shipping companies to stop using the Red Sea – through which almost 15% of global seaborne trade usually passes – and to take a much longer route around southern Africa instead.

US-led naval forces thwarted many Houthi attacks on shipping and former US president Joe Biden began US air strikes against the Houthis, which have intensified under Trump.

Last month, the Houthis said at least 68 African migrants were killed in a US air strike on a detention centre in north-western Yemen.

The Houthis have continued firing missiles towards Israel, with one missile landing near Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv on Sunday.

On Tuesday Israel responded with a large-scale attack on Yemen’s main international airport in the capital Sanaa, which left it “completely destroyed” according to an airport official quoted by AFP.

Other Israeli strikes hit power facilities and a cement factory. On Monday Israel bombed port facilities in Hudaydah and another cement factory in the city.

In an exclusive and remarkably candid interview – the first since he left office – Joe Biden discusses what he really thinks of his successor’s first 100 days, plus his fears for the future if the Atlantic Alliance collapses

It is hard to believe that the man I greet in the Delaware hotel where he launched his political career more than half a century ago was the “leader of the free world” little over 100 days ago.

Joe Biden is still surrounded by all the trappings of power – the black SUVs, the security guys with curly earpieces, the sniffer dogs sent ahead to sweep the room for explosives. And yet he has spent the last three months watching much of what he believes in being swept away by his successor.

Donald Trump has deployed the name Biden again and again – it is his political weapon of choice. One recent analysis showed that Trump said or wrote the name Biden at least 580 times in those first 100 days in office. Having claimed that rises in share prices were “Trump’s stock market” at work, he later blamed sharp falls in share prices on “Biden’s stock market”.

Until this week, President Biden himself (former presidents keep their titles after they leave office) has largely observed the convention that former presidents do not criticise their predecessors at the start of their time in office. But from the moment we shake hands it is clear that he is determined to have his say too.

In a dark blue suit, the former president arrives smiling and relaxed but with the determined air of a man on a mission. It’s his first interview since leaving the White House, and he seems most angry about Donald Trump’s treatment of America’s allies – in particular Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

• Trump appeasing Putin with pressure on Ukraine, Biden tells BBC

“I found it beneath America, the way that took place,” he says of the explosive Oval Office row between Trump and Zelensky in February. “And the way we talk about now that, ‘it’s the Gulf of America’, ‘maybe we’re going to have to take back Panama’, ‘maybe we need to acquire Greenland, ‘maybe Canada should be a [51st state].’ What the hell’s going on here?

“What President ever talks like that? That’s not who we are. We’re about freedom, democracy, opportunity – not about confiscation.”

After just over 100 action-packed days of Trump there was no shortage of targets for President Biden to choose from.

But his main concern appears to be on the international stage, rather than the domestic one: that is, the threat he believes now faces the alliance between the United States and Europe which, as he puts it, secured peace, freedom and democracy for eight decades.

Just before our interview, which took place days before the 80th anniversary of VE Day, Biden took a large gold coin out of his pocket and pressed it into my hand. It was a souvenir of last year’s D-Day commemoration. Biden believes that the speech he delivered on that beach in Normandy is one of his most important. In it, he declared that the men who fought and died “knew – beyond any doubt – that there are things worth fighting and dying for”.

I ask him whether he feels that message about sacrifice is in danger of being forgotten in America. Not by the people, he replies but, yes, by the leadership. It is, he says, a “grave concern” that the Atlantic Alliance is seen to be dying.

“I think it would change the modern history of the world if that occurs,” he argues.

“We’re the only nation in a position to have the capacity to bring people together, [to] lead the world. Otherwise you’re going to have China and the former Soviet Union, Russia, stepping up.”

Now more than ever before that Alliance is being questioned. One leading former NATO figure told the BBC this week that the VE Day celebrations felt more like a funeral. President Trump has complained that the United States is being “ripped off” by her allies, Vice President JD Vance has said that America is “bailing out” Europe whilst Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has insisted that Europe is “free-loading”.

Biden calls the pledge all members of Nato – the Atlantic Alliance – make “to defend each and every inch of Nato territory with the full force of our collective power” a “sacred obligation”.

“I fear that our allies around the world are going to begin to doubt whether we’re going to stay where we’ve always been for the last 80 years,” Biden says.

Under his presidency, both Finland and Sweden joined Nato – something he thinks made the alliance stronger. “We did all that – and in four years we’ve got a guy who wants to walk away from it all.

“I’m worried that Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America, and the leadership of America in the world, to deal with not only Nato, but other matters that are of consequence.”

I meet President Biden in the place he has called home since he was a boy, the city of Wilmington in Delaware. It is an hour and a half Amtrak train ride from Washington DC, a journey he has been making for 50 years since becoming a Senator at the age of just 30. He has spent more years in government than any other president.

He was 82 when he left the Oval Office. His age has invited no end of scrutiny – an “at times addled old man” is how the journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson describe him in their book, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.

His calamitous live TV debate performance last June prompted further questions, as Biden stumbled over his words, lost his thread mid-sentence and boasted, somewhat bafflingly, that “We finally beat Medicare!”. He withdrew from the election campaign soon after.

Today, Biden is still warm and charismatic, with the folksy charm that made him an election winner but he is a much slower, quieter and more hesitant version of the leader he was once. Meeting with him in person, I found it hard to imagine he could have served for another four years in the White House, taking him closer to the age of 90.

I ask Biden if he’s now had to think again about his decisions last year. He pulled out of the presidential race just 107 days before election day, leaving Kamala Harris limited time to put together her own campaign.

“I don’t think it would have mattered,” he says. “We left at a time when we had a good candidate, she was fully funded.

“What we had set out to do, no-one thought we could do,” he continues. “And we had become so successful in our agenda, it was hard to say, ‘No, I’m going to stop now’… It was a hard decision.”

One he regrets? Surely withdrawing earlier could have given someone else a greater chance?

“No, I think it was the right decision.” He pauses. “I think that… Well, it was just a difficult decision.”

Biden says he went into politics to fight injustice and to this day has lost none of his appetite for the fight. Last year at the D-Day celebrations he warned: “We’re living in a time when democracy is more at risk across the world than at any point since the end of World War Two.”

Today, he expands on this: “Look at the number of European leaders and European countries that are wondering, Well what do I do now? What’s the best route for me to take? Can I rely on the United States? Are they going to be there?”

“Instead of democracy expanding around the world, [it’s] receding. Democracy – every generation has to fight for it.”

Speaking in Chicago recently, Biden declared that “nobody’s king” in America. I asked him if he thinks President Trump is behaving more like a monarch than a constitutionally limited president.

He chooses his reply carefully. “He’s not behaving like a Republican president,” he says.

Though later in our interview, Biden admits he’s less worried about the future of US democracy than he used to be, “because I think the Republican Party is waking up to what Trump is about”.

President Biden relished his role as the leading figure in Nato, deploying normally top secret intelligence to tell a sceptical world back in 2022 that Vladimir Putin was about to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine.

Since taking office President Trump has charted a different course, telling Ukraine that it must consider giving up territory to Russia if it wants the war to end.

“It is modern day appeasement,” Biden says of Trump’s approach.

Putin, he says, sees Ukraine as “part of Mother Russia. He believes he has historical rights to Ukraine… He can’t stand the fact that […] the Soviet Union has collapsed. And anybody who thinks he’s going to stop is just foolish.”

He fears that Trump’s approach might signal to other European countries that it’s time to give in to Russia.

Yet Biden has faced accusations against him concerning the Ukraine War. Some in Kyiv and her allies, as well as some in the UK, claim that he gave President Zelensky just enough support to resist invasion but not enough to defeat Russia, perhaps out of fear that Putin would consider using nuclear weapons if cornered.

When Putin was asked point blank on TV this week whether he would use nuclear weapons to win the war, he declared that he hoped that they would “not be necessary,” adding that he had the means to bring the war to what he called his “logical conclusion”.

I point out to Biden that it has been argued that he didn’t have the courage to go all the way to give Ukraine the weapons it needed – to let Ukraine win.

“We gave them [Ukraine] everything they needed to provide for their independence,” Biden argues. “And we were prepared to respond more aggressively if in fact Putin moved again.”

He says he was keen to avoid the prospect of “World War Three, with nuclear powers,” adding: “And we did avoid it.

“What would Putin do if things got really tough for him?” he continues. “Threaten the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This is not a game or roulette.”

Biden’s belief in the Atlantic Alliance of the last living President born during World War Two is clearly undiminished.

When he first arrived in the Oval Office, Biden hung a portrait of America’s wartime leader Franklin D. Roosevelt on the wall. He was born two and a half years after the defeat of the Nazis into the world FDR helped to create – a world of American global leadership and solidarity. But the United States voted to reject Biden’s policies and values and instead to endorse Donald Trump’s call to put America First.

The world is changing from what people like Joe Biden have taken for granted.

“Every generation has to fight to maintain democracy, every one,” Biden says. “Every one’s going to be challenged.

“We’ve done it well for the last 80 years. And I’m worried there’s the loss of understanding of the consequences of that.”

Eighty miles from Moscow, a park echoes to the sound of explosions and gunfire.

As plumes of thick grey smoke rise into the air, the Red Army storms across a bridge and battles for control of a tiny island. More Soviet soldiers are arriving by boat from across a lake.

Once on the island they tear down a swastika and replace it with the hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union. Victory.

A large crowd is watching from the safety of the shore. What they’re witnessing is an historical re-enactment of one of the final battles for Berlin in 1945. It led to the capitulation of Nazi Germany and what Moscow still refers to as The Great Victory.

The battle for Berlin, unfolding in front of me in the town of Dubna, is one of many events in Russia for the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in World War Two.

The anniversary is receiving enormous attention in a country where the national idea is built very much around the notion of Russia as victor and victim.

“I’m here because my grandfather fought in this war,” one of the spectators, Katya, tells me.

“He went missing near Berlin. Much later we found out he’d been killed in January 1945.”

Eighty years on Katya’s son is fighting in Ukraine.

“My son is in a war now. He’s in the ‘special military operation’,” she tells me. “He volunteered. I tried to talk him out of it. But he hasn’t listened to anyone since he was a kid.

‘I’m my own tsar,’ he told me. ‘Go fight, then, if you’re a tsar,’ I replied. He and his friend went together. His friend was killed.”

Katya’s family history is a story of different generations fighting on the front line.

But in very different circumstances.

In 1941, Hitler’s Germany invaded the Soviet Union to try to conquer the world’s largest country and secure world domination. Soviet soldiers (Katya’s grandfather among them) fought to liberate their country from the Nazis. Victory for Moscow came at an enormous human cost: more than 27 million Soviet citizens were killed in what is known here as the Great Fatherland or Great Patriotic War.

But in 2022 it was Russia that launched a large-scale invasion – of its neighbour. What the Kremlin still calls a “special military operation” was widely seen as an attempt to force Ukraine back into Russia’s geo-political orbit. In March 2022, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning Russia’s “aggression.”

And yet the Russian authorities portray the war in Ukraine as a continuation of World War Two. The official narrative here creates a parallel reality, in which Russia once again is fighting Nazism and fascism, in Ukraine and across Europe. Russia, the country which invaded Ukraine, presents itself as the victim of external aggression.

“Historically and sociologically, victory in the Great Patriotic War was always a cornerstone of Russian united consciousness,” Novaya Gazeta columnist Andrei Kolesnikov explains, “because there is no glue for the nation: only this event. It was always so, from Brezhnev’s time until now.

“But what’s happening now is something special. Now the Great Patriotic War is presented as just the first step in our permanent war with the West, against ‘Eurofascism.’ The Special Military Operation as the continuation of the Great Patriotic War: this is something new.”

In Russia, television plays a key role in spreading the official message that Europe couldn’t be trusted then and cannot be trusted now. Recently, on Russian TV, I saw a documentary entitled “Europe Against Russia. Hitler’s Crusaders”. It was about how European countries had collaborated with the Nazis during World War Two.

No mention of the 1939 non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin: under its secret protocol Germany and the USSR had carved up spheres of influence in eastern Europe.

Last month a Russian TV presenter launched a tirade against German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a staunch supporter of military support to Ukraine. The talk show host called Germany’s leader “a Nazi scumbag” for comments about Russia. Addressing the Chancellor directly, the anchor said that Russians “hold you and your comrades responsible for the killing of 27 million Soviet citizens.”

Iconography underpins the ideology. In the town of Khimki, near Moscow, a recently unveiled monument depicts a Red Army soldier side by side with a Russian who is fighting in Ukraine. Framed photos of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine have been placed below the two fighter figures.

An inscription reads: “By preserving the past we defend the future!”

Wars past and present: brought together in bronze.

In the run up to Victory Day, Russia has been awash with reminders of The Great Victory. Last month a Soyuz rocket decorated to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany blasted off from the Baikonur cosmodrome.

Back down on earth, at a maternity hospital in the Siberian city of Kemerovo, newborn babies are being dressed in miniature Red Army caps and capes.

On its Telegram channel, the hospital explained that battle clothes for babies served “as a reminder of links between the generations, the courage of the defenders of the Fatherland and of how even the tiniest Russian citizen is part of a big history.”

In Moscow, the Russian word for ‘Victory’ – ‘Pobeda’ – is everywhere: on giant billboards, on posters in shop windows, even stuck to the side of road-sweepers. Underground, special “victory trains” on the Moscow Metro have been decked out with World War Two imagery and the words: “Be proud!” and “Remember!”

Tanks have been rolling down Moscow’s main street, Tverskaya, at rehearsals for the big 9 May parade on Red Square. In Soviet times, after 1945, military parades on Victory Day were rare. Under Vladimir Putin they have become a key element of what is now Russia’s most sacred national holiday – a day not only for remembering the victims of World War Two, but for showcasing Russian military power and to unite the people around the idea of Russia as an unbeatable nation.

The USSR was, indeed, victorious in the Great Patriotic War. But eighty years on, and despite confident pronouncements by Russian officials, victory eludes Moscow in Ukraine. The Kremlin’s “special military operation” was only expected to last a few days, a few weeks maximum. After more than three years of war – and huge casualties on both sides – it’s still unclear how and when the fighting will end.

The Kremlin says 29 world leaders, including China’s Xi Jinping, will be attending the Victory Day parade. According to Moscow, Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico will be visiting Russia for the commemorations. Ensuring security for the military parade and guests on Red Square will already have been a top priority for the Kremlin. Even more so after two consecutive nights of Ukrainian drone attacks targeting Moscow.

Back in Dubna, German resistance has crumbled and the Red Army is in full control. The re-enactment is over.

Some of the spectators here believe the official portrayal of Russia as a besieged fortress threatened by the West.

“Both Britain and America have betrayed us and threaten us,” Lidiya tells me. “But we are resilient. You cannot defeat Russia.”

When I talk to 98-year-old Fyodor Melnikov, he doesn’t get into politics. The military show has sparked painful memories for him. Fyodor’s brother was killed in the Great Patriotic War.

“War is a terrifying thing,” Fyodor tells me. “People should be allowed to live freely. Let them work, let them live their lives, let them die naturally.”

Fyodor has written a poem about his late brother, about war. He recites it for me. In translation it sounds like this:

On Friday, along with the whole of Russia, Fyodor Melnikov will be celebrating the 80th anniversary of The Great Victory of 1945.

But it will be a day for remembering, too: friends and family who never returned.

A day for acknowledging the cost of war.

• SIMPLE GUIDE: VE Day moments so far – and what’s still to come
• IN PICTURES: Red Arrows, royals, veterans and tea
• WATCH: Unseen royal moments from VE Day commemorations
• 360 VIDEO: Experience the flypast from inside a Red Arrows cockpit
• EXPLORE: More on VE Day

It has long been the great prize for Britain’s post-EU trade freedom – a deal with what is now the world’s most populous country.

India has agreed its most generous free trade agreement with the UK, which is at the same time Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal.

It means a big boost for key UK exports such as whisky and cars which will see very high tariffs or taxes on imports slashed.

This is not a normal deal taking two way trade down to zero tariffs. India is a highly protectionist economy. So, while 99% of tariffs on India’s exports to the UK will be eradicated, 85% of British exports will not be tariffed going to India.

But because British exports are so much higher value than Indian exports of clothing, footwear, and food, this should be worth £15bn extra for British exports and £10bn for India by 2040. This could change, though. For example, 88,000 cheaper Indian cars will now be able to be imported tariff free.

The UK government sees this as a win-win which helps exporters, creates jobs, and means lower prices for consumers. This is all part of, in Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds words, making the UK the “most connected market in the world” – with a Brexit reset, a deal with the US, “pragmatism” on China, and new deals with India, and soon the Gulf.

But there is also a much bigger picture here. This is the worlds fifth and sixth biggest economies doing a much closer deal to increase trade at a time when the top two – the US and China – are involved in a brutal trade war, and the Trump administration is tariffing everywhere.

This may be one of the reasons why this elusive deal, coveted by many previous governments, has finally got over the line. It also turns the page on decades of missed economic opportunities, given the strong historic connections between the two nations.

On Wednesday evening, under the domed ceiling of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, 133 cardinals will vote to elect the Catholic Church’s 267th pope.

The day will begin at 10:00 (09:00 BST) with a mass in St Peter’s Basilica. The service, which will be televised, will be presided over by Giovanni Battista Re, the 91-year-old Cardinal Dean who was also the celebrant of Pope Francis’ funeral.

In the early afternoon, mobile signal within the territory of the Vatican will be deactivated to prevent anyone taking part in the conclave from contacting the outside world.

Around 16:15 (15:15 BST), the 133 cardinal electors will gather in the Pauline Chapel and form a procession to the Sistine Chapel.

All the while they will be singing a litany and the hymn Veni Creator – an invocation to the Holy Spirit, which is seen as the guiding hand that will help cardinals choose the new Pope.

Once in the Sistine Chapel, one hand resting on a copy of the Gospel, the cardinals will pronounce the prescribed oath of secrecy which precludes them from ever sharing details about how the new Pope was elected.

When the last of the electors has taken the oath, a meditation will be held. Then, the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations Diego Ravelli will announce “extra omnes” (“everybody out”).

He is one of three ecclesiastical staff allowed to stay in the Sistine Chapel despite not being a cardinal elector, even though they will have to leave the premises during the counting of the votes.

The moment “extra omnes” is pronounced marks the start of the cardinals’ isolation – and the start of the conclave.

The word, which comes from the Latin for “cum clave”, or “locked with key” is slightly misleading, as the cardinals are no longer locked inside; rather, on Tuesday Vatican officials closed the entrances to the Apostolic Palace – which includes the Sistine Chapel- with lead seals which will remain until the end of the proceedings. Swiss guards will also flank all the entrances to the chapel.

Diego Ravelli will distribute ballot papers, and the cardinals will proceed to the first vote soon after.

While nothing forbids the Pope from being elected with the first vote, it has not happened in centuries. Still, that first ballot is very important, says Austen Ivereigh, a Catholic writer and commentator.

“The cardinals who have more than 20 votes will be taken into consideration. In the first ballot the votes will be very scattered and the electors know they have to concentrate on the ones that have numbers,” says Ivereigh.

He adds that every other ballot thereafter will indicate which of the cardinals have the momentum. “It’s almost like a political campaign… but it’s not really a competition; it’s an effort by the body to find consensus.”

If the vote doesn’t yield the two-third majority needed to elect the new pope, the cardinals go back to guesthouse Casa Santa Marta for dinner. It is then, on the sidelines of the voting process, that important conversations among the cardinals take place and consensus begins to coalesce around different names.

According to Italian media, the menu options consist of light dishes which are usually served to guests of the residence, and includes wine – but no spirits. The waiters and kitchen staff are also sworn to secrecy and cannot leave the grounds for the duration of the conclave.

From Thursday morning, cardinals will be taking breakfast between 06:30 (05:30 BST) and 07:30 (06:30 BST) ahead of mass at 08:15 (07:15 BST). Two votes then take place in the morning, followed by lunch and rest. In his memoirs, Pope Francis said that was when he began to receive signals from the other cardinals that serious consensus was beginning to form around him; he was elected during the first afternoon vote. The last two conclaves have all concluded by the end of the second day.

There is no way of knowing at this stage whether this will be a long or a short conclave – but cardinals are aware that dragging the proceedings on could be interpreted as a sign of gaping disagreements.

As they discuss, pray and vote, outside the boarded-up windows of the Sistine Chapel thousands of faithful will be looking up to the chimney to the right of St Peter’s Basilica, waiting for the white plume of smoke to signal that the next pope has been elected.

Sometimes in war it is the smallest sound that can make the loudest statement.

In Gaza’s Nasser hospital, a five-month-old girl struggles to cry.

Siwar Ashour is hoarse. Her voice has been robbed of the energy to fully communicate her distress. She cannot absorb regular formula milk and doctors say the Israeli blockade now in its third month means supplies of the food she needs are scarce.

Siwar sounds as if the weight of the war is pressing down on her lungs.

Her mother Najwa, 23, is changing Siwar’s nappy. She weighs just over 2kg (4lb 6oz). A baby girl of five months should be around or over 6kg.

“There was no food when I gave birth to her,” says Najwa.

“If I wanted to feed myself so I could breastfeed her, I had no nutrients to make my health better… She now only drinks formula milk, and we don’t know how we’ll be able to provide it for her.”

Israel has banned international journalists from entering Gaza to report independently.

A local BBC colleague filmed the unmistakable signs of advanced malnutrition on Siwar’s body. The head that seems far too big for her frame. The stick-like arms and legs. The ribs pressing against her skin when she tries to cry. The large brown eyes that follow her mother’s every small movement.

Najwa worries about what will happen when she must leave the hospital.

“The hospital provided with great difficulty some milk for her, they searched all of the hospitals but they could only find it in one. They told me that they will give me one bottle when we leave, but it is barely enough for four days. Her father is blind and he can’t provide a bottle of milk for her, and even if we found it, it would be expensive, and he doesn’t work.”

According to Siwar’s doctor, Ziad al-Majaida, it was her second stay in the hospital. She was back because of the shortage of milk formula.

“Nothing enters through the borders, no milk, food or anything. This leads to big problems here for the kids. This baby needs a specific type of milk. It was available before, but because of the border closure, the stocks have run out for a while now.”

The hospital is trying to find more supplies but Siwar is weak and suffering from constant diarrhoea.

“If she stays like this, her life will be in danger, but if her milk or treatment were provided, then her state would improve,” says Dr Majaida.

Since the beginning of the year, according to the UN, about 10,000 cases of acute malnutrition among children have been identified. Food prices have rocketed by as much as 1,400%.

Charity kitchens, which have helped hundreds of thousands of Gazans, are shutting as food supplies run out. Twenty-five bakeries supported by the World Food Programme have been forced to close.

In the southern city of Khan Younis, where Nasser hospital is located, our journalist visited a kitchen run by Shabab Gaza (Gaza Youth), which delivers food directly to families. Enough for a meal a day per family.

The head of the charity, Mohammad Abu Rjileh, 29, said three of their four kitchens had closed due to lack of supplies. Looting by criminal gangs, and by desperate civilians has deepened the supply crisis.

“Many of the organisations that support us had their warehouses looted. Instead of having enough ingredients to cook 10,000 meals daily – ingredients that were expected to last us an additional week or 10 days – we now have enough for only one or two days. If no immediate solution is implemented and the borders are not opened as soon as possible, we will be forced to stop cooking.”

Israel cut off all humanitarian aid and other supplies from entering Gaza on 2 March, and resumed its military offensive two weeks later, saying it was putting pressure on Hamas to release the 59 hostages the group is still holding in Gaza, up to 24 of whom are still thought to be alive.

The United Nations has said the Israeli blockade constitutes “a cruel collective punishment” on civilians.

The UN’s humanitarian director, former British diplomat Tom Fletcher, said that international law was unequivocal.

“As the occupying power, Israel must allow humanitarian support in… Aid, and the civilian lives it saves, should never be a bargaining chip,” he warned.

I put this point to Boaz Bismuth, a leading member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. He denies there is an aid crisis caused by the blockade.

“There is food in Gaza… Israel wouldn’t do such a restriction if the population didn’t have food. I mean, I know my country perfectly well,” he said.

I put it to Bismuth that he was denying the evidence of people’s eyes, that children were starving.

“There are not starving children. I repeat again.” He said that there had been allegations months ago of famine, ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza “which was crap”.

“Nothing has really changed because we’re Israel, and we obey not only international law, but also humanitarian law.”

“What we want is our hostages back and Hamas out of Gaza. The war can be over in exactly 30 seconds.”

Israel has long accused Hamas of hijacking aid, which Hamas denies.

The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, based in the occupied West Bank, recently claimed most of the looting was being done by gangs associated with Hamas.

He also called the movement “sons of dogs” and demanded the release of Israeli hostages. Hamas responded by saying Abbas “repeatedly and suspiciously lays the blame for the crimes of the occupation [Israel] and its ongoing aggression on our people”.

Without being able to enter Gaza and report independently, it is difficult to investigate the unfolding events.

Violent criminal gangs have been heavily implicated in stealing aid. Hamas is threatening violence against groups and individuals it accuses of theft.

Two people were shot outside an Unrwa warehouse but it is not clear who killed them. A local activist who was present blamed Hamas. 

“Hamas is hoarding food, depriving the hungry population of food, and selling food at very high prices. The population protested and demanded that the food be distributed or they would take it by force. Hamas fired live ammunition at the hungry,” said Moumen al-Natour, a lawyer and protest leader.

All of this is happening in the context of a growing hunger and the breakdown in order that has accompanied the war and blockade.

The Israeli cabinet has approved an escalation of the military offensive in Gaza. It says it aims to destroy Hamas – a goal that has proved elusive for the last 19 months of war.

There are also reports that Israel plans to use private security companies to oversee the distribution of aid in Gaza, although no date for this has been made public.

The United Nations and major aid agencies have described this as a politicisation of aid with which they will refuse to co-operate.

The day Germany’s new leader entered office will now forever be remembered for a very public failure.

Friedrich Merz’s initial, shock defeat – in his bid to become chancellor – sparked hours of chaotic uncertainty.

A man who’d been working to project strength and purpose instead became mired in political intrigue and division.

Merz may have won on the second try, but today’s messy path to power raises serious questions about the future government.

If he couldn’t muster the votes amongst coalition colleagues – at such a key moment – how will he fare when trying to push through any contentious legislation?

It comes as Germany faces a prolonged recession, fractious arguments on immigration, potentially seismic decisions on defence spending and a surging far-right political force.

But Merz’s allies insist the situation can quickly be recovered and reject the idea that Merz emerges irreparably damaged.

“Now we are looking in front and forward,” says Gunther Krichbaum, a veteran of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) and Germany’s new Europe Minister.

“So I think we will have a very, very good and also stable government,” he told the BBC.

“This is not only necessary for Germany but also Europe.”

Berlin’s allies have been impatient to see an effective administration, after the bickering that characterised the last, collapsed coalition government.

But Merz now heads off for his planned trips to Warsaw and Paris on Wednesday in the shadow of a tumultuous Tuesday.

There’s speculation aplenty as to which MPs, in the secret ballot, didn’t back Merz on the first round – and why.

Disgruntled people, passed over for government jobs, is one theory.

Did members within the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) decide that they had to protest at the political compromises struck with Merz’s centre-right party?

Or did the forthright Merz – and ambitious SPD Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil – struggle to rally their own ranks?

Figures from both sides were quickly keen to suggest that the other was chiefly to blame.

Whichever MPs did the deed they were, it seems, willing to risk making Merz and his acolytes sweat.

Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), who are suing Germany’s domestic intelligence service for classing the party as extremist, had a ringside seat for the whole show.

Following February’s election, the AfD is the main opposition party and pounced on events as evidence of the fundamental weaknesses within a coalition made up of the centre-right CDU/CSU parties and centre-left SPD.

“It is very clear that this government… will be a very, very unstable one,” says Beatrix von Storch, the AfD’s deputy group leader.

She also echoed claims that it was all further proof that the so-called “firewall” of non-cooperation with her party will not last.

“This has shown that this firewall has to fall if you want to have a shift in politics in Germany,” von Storch told the BBC.

Also watching on from the Reichstag’s visitors’ gallery was Merz’s old political rival from within the CDU, former chancellor Angela Merkel.

He once lost out to her in a power struggle but returned later to politics – to try and realise his long-held dream of taking the top job.

This can’t have been the way in which Merz envisioned entering office.

But, more importantly, the spectacle leaves his claims of being ready to provide firm government, significantly undermined on day one.

A senior Hamas official has said the armed group is not interested in further talks on a new Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal while Israel continues what he called its “starvation war”.

Israel cut off all humanitarian aid from entering Gaza nine weeks ago and later resumed its military offensive, saying it was putting pressure on Hamas to release hostages.

But Bassem Naim said there was “no point in any negotiations” while the blockade remained in place.

His comments came after Israel’s security cabinet approved an expanded offensive which could see the forced displacement of most of Gaza’s 2.1 million population and occupation of all of the Palestinian territory indefinitely.

Israel also intends to replace the current aid delivery and distribution system with one channelled through private companies and military hubs.

The UN’s humanitarian office has rejected that idea, saying it does not live up to fundamental humanitarian principles and “appears to be a deliberate attempt to weaponize the aid”.

On Monday, the Israeli military’s spokesman said its expanded ground offensive in Gaza would seek to bring home the remaining 59 hostages, up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive, and achieve the “dismantling and decisive defeat of the Hamas regime”.

The operation would take place on a “wide scale” and involve “the movement of the majority of the Gaza Strip’s population – in order to protect them in a Hamas-free zone”, he added.

An Israeli official briefed the media that the offensive would also include “holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, [and] denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies”.

A second official said it would not be implemented until after US President Donald Trump’s visit to the region next week, providing what he called “a window of opportunity” to Hamas to agree a new ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Bassem Naim’s comments on Tuesday seemed to counter that.

“There is no point in any negotiations or engagement with new proposals while [Israel] continues its starvation war against our people in the Gaza Strip – a war that the international community, including UN institutions, has deemed a war crime in itself,” he said.

Hamas also put out a separate statement telling Israeli ministers that their approval of the expanded offensive represented “an explicit decision to sacrifice” Israeli hostages.

There was no immediate response from the Israeli government, but far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich told a conference that an Israeli victory in Gaza would see the territory “entirely destroyed” and its residents “concentrated” in the south, from where they would “start to leave in great numbers to third countries”.

UN Secretary General António Guterres warned that expanded Israeli ground operations and a prolonged military presence would “inevitably lead to countless more civilians killed and the further destruction of Gaza”.

France’s Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said Israel’s plans were “unacceptable” and that its government was “in violation of humanitarian law”.

In Washington, Trump said the US would help supply food to people in Gaza, without going into details.

“People are starving and we’re going to help them get some food,” he said. “Hamas is making it impossible because they’re taking everything that’s brought in.”

Israel cut off all deliveries of aid and other supplies on 2 March and resumed its offensive on 18 March after the collapse of a two-month ceasefire that saw 33 Israeli hostages released in exchange for about 1,900 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

Israel has also accused Hamas of stealing and storing aid – an allegation the group has denied.

But aid agencies have warned that mass starvation is imminent unless the blockade ends.

The UN and its humanitarian partners have said Israeli authorities are seeking to shut down the existing aid distribution system run by them and are asking them to agree to deliver supplies “through Israeli hubs under conditions set by the Israeli military”.

Israeli Army Radio reported on Tuesday that Israel was proposing to distribute aid from three distribution centres in the southern governorate of Rafah, which is currently covered by an Israeli evacuation order and cut off from the rest of the territory by a new military corridor.

It said a representative from each family in Gaza would be allowed to go to the centres to receive a week’s supply of food – estimated to be about 70kg (154lb) on average – in order to prevent starvation. They would be screened to ensure Hamas members did not enter.

The report said the distribution would be managed by American organisations and private companies, rather than Israeli troops. It added that aid would not be distributed anywhere else in Gaza, which might hasten the movement of the population southwards.

A spokesman for the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said the Israeli plan “appears designed to further control and restrict supplies, which is the opposite of what is needed”, adding that aid should never be used as a way of forcing populations to move.

Jens Laerke told a news conference in Geneva that the UN would not co-operate with the plan because it would “not live up to the core fundamental humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independent delivery of aid”.

“Impartiality means aid is provided on needs alone, not based on trying to get people to go somewhere,” he said. “Then neutral and independent: it is extremely important that [those receiving aid] see a neutral provider that they have nothing to fear from.”

The UN has said Israel is obliged under international law to ensure food and medical supplies for Gaza’s population. Israel has said it is complying with international law and there is no aid shortage because thousands of lorry loads entered during the ceasefire.

One Palestinian man in Gaza said he believed Israel’s proposal was “camouflage” and that it “has no intention of allowing aid into” the territory.

“This is the basic principle Israel is working on – to prolong the blockade until Gaza reaches an aggravated stage of famine,” he told BBC Arabic’s Gaza Today programme.

But another man said his “first and last concern” was receiving the supplies his family needed to survive, adding: “What really matters to us is that we want to live, eat, and go on with life.”

Israel’s resumed bombardment and ground operations over the past seven weeks have already resulted in hundreds of casualties and the displacement of an estimated 423,000 people, with about 70% of Gaza placed under Israeli evacuation orders, within an Israel-designated “no-go” zone, or both, according to the UN.

On Tuesday, officials from the Hamas-run civil defence agency said Israeli strikes across Gaza killed at least 37 people.

Strikes included Israel bombing a UN-run school in Bureij refugee camp that was being used as a shelter for displaced families, killing 31 people and injuring dozens more, Gaza’s civil defence agency told AFP. Children and women were among those killed.

The Israeli military said it “struck terrorists who were operating within a Hamas command-and-control centre”. Hamas denounced the attack as a “horrific massacre”.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,615 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 2,507 since the Israeli offensive resumed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Conservative leader Friedrich Merz has won a parliament vote to become Germany’s next chancellor at the second attempt.

Merz had initially fallen six votes short of the absolute majority he needed on Tuesday morning – a significant blow to his prestige and an unprecedented failure in post-war German history.

As it was a secret ballot in the 630-seat Bundestag, there was no indication who had refused to back him – whether MPs from his centre-left coalition partner or his own conservatives.

After hours of uncertainty in the Bundestag, the parties and the president of the Bundestag agreed to hold a second vote, which Merz then won with 325 votes, a majority of nine.

His coalition with the Social Democrats should have had enough seats in parliament from the start, with 328 MPs in total, but it is thought 18 of them dissented during the first vote.

No chancellor candidate has lost a Bundestag vote in the 76 years since democracy was restored in Germany in 1949, and there was a prevailing mood of confusion in parliament in the hours after the vote.

Under Germany’s constitution, there is no limit to how many votes can be held but in practice another defeat for Merz would have meant a headache for his Christian Democrats, its sister party the Christian Social Union and their partner the Social Democrats.

The result meant a total debacle had been averted, declared one German news website.

Merz, 69, was then sworn in as chancellor by President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and his team of 17 ministers were due to take office.

Bundestag President Julia Klöckner had originally been planning a follow-up vote on Wednesday, but Christian Democrat General Secretary Carsten Linnemann said it was important to press ahead.

“Europe needs a strong Germany, that’s why we can’t wait for days,” he told German TV.

Parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn appealed to his colleagues’ sense of responsibility: “All of Europe, perhaps the whole world, is watching this ballot.”

Merz’s defeat had been seen by political commentators as a humiliation, possibly inflicted by a handful of disaffected members of the Social Democrat SPD, which signed a coalition deal with his conservatives on Monday.

The Bundestag president told MPs that nine of the 630 MPs had been absent for the first vote while three had abstained and another ballot paper had been declared invalid.

Germany’s new Europe Minister, Gunther Krichbaum, told the BBC that some MPs may have hoped for a ministerial or state secretary role and had their hopes dashed. He also pointed out that some young Social Democrats had publicly said they were not convinced by Merz.

However, SPD officials were adamant their party was fully committed to the coalition deal.

“It was a secret vote so nobody knows,” senior Social Democrat MP Ralf Stegner told the BBC, “but I can tell you I don’t have the slightest impression that our parliamentary group wouldn’t have known our responsibility.”

Krichbaum, a conservative, said the clear message was that “now we are today in the situation to create a stable government” to tackle Germany’s big issues, including migration and the economy.

Far-right party Alternative for Germany, which came second in the February election with 20.8% of the vote, seized on Merz’s initial failure and called for fresh elections.

Joint leader Alice Weidel wrote on X that the vote showed “the weak foundation on which the small coalition has been built between the [conservatives] and SPD, which was rejected by voters”.

Merz’s choice for foreign minister, Christian Democrat colleague Johann Wadephul, told the BBC the initial vote was “an obstacle but not a catastrophe”.

Germany’s handover of government is carefully choreographed. On the eve of Tuesday’s vote, outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz was treated to a traditional Grand Tattoo by an armed forces orchestra.

Merz had then been expected to sail through the initial vote on Tuesday morning, fulfilling a long-held ambition to become German chancellor.

His rival and former chancellor Angela Merkel had come to the Bundestag to watch the vote take place. She was not present for the second vote.

Among the first international leaders to congratulate Germany’s conservative leader was Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, who hoped that Germany would “grow even stronger and that we’ll see more German leadership in European and transatlantic affairs”.

Political correspondents in the Bundestag said Merz’s initial shock result indicated he had a potential problem lurking within his coalition ranks.

AfD MP Bernd Baumann said the CDU had promised a string of policies similar to his own party’s, such as limiting migration, and had then gone into an alliance with the centre left: “That doesn’t work. That’s not how democracy works.”

“This isn’t good,” warned Green politician Katrin Göring-Eckardt. “Even though I don’t want this chancellor or support him, I can only warn everyone not to rejoice in chaos.”

Barely 24 hours earlier, the messaging from Merz had been very different, of a new, stable government bringing six months of political paralysis to an end.

“It’s our historical duty to make this government a success,” he had said as he signed the coalition document on Monday.

Despite having a narrow majority of 12 seats, the agreement between the conservatives and centre left was seen as far more secure than the so-called traffic-light coalition of three parties that fell apart last November in a row over debt spending.

The SPD, which had been the biggest party in the old coalition slumped to its worst post-war election result in third place, but Merz had promised that Germany was back and that he would boost its voice on the world stage and revive a flagging economy.

After two years of recession, Europe’s largest economy grew in the first three months of 2025. However economists have warned of potential risks to German exports because of US-imposed tariffs.

Germany’s services sector contracted last month because of weaker demand and lower consumer spending.

As the sun set over Lake Turkana, a mother sobbed and threw flowers into the greenish-blue water to remember her teenage daughter who had drowned trying to reach Kenya via a new route being used by people smugglers.

Senait Mebrehtu, a Pentecostal Christian Eritrean who had sought asylum in Kenya three years ago, made the pilgrimage to north-western Kenya to see for herself where 14-year-old Hiyab had lost her life last year.

The girl had been travelling with her sister, who survived the late-night crossing over the vast lake, where winds can be powerful.

“If the smugglers told me there was such a big and dangerous lake in Kenya, I wouldn’t have let my daughters come this far,” Ms Senait told the BBC as she sat on the western shoreline.

Ms Senait had arrived by plane in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, on a tourist visa with her two younger children, fleeing religious persecution. But she was not allowed to travel with her two other daughters at the time as they were older and nearer the age of conscription.

Eritrea is a highly militarised, one-party country – and often national service can go on for years and can include forced labour.

The teenagers begged to join her in Kenya, so she consulted relatives who told her they would pay smugglers to get the girls out of Eritrea.

The fate of the two girls was put into the hands of traffickers who took them on a weeks-long trip by road and foot from Eritrea into neighbouring Ethiopia – then to the south into Kenya to the north-eastern shores of Lake Turkana, the world’s largest permanent desert lake.

A female smuggler in Kenya confirmed to the BBC that Lake Turkana was increasingly being used as an illegal crossing for the migrants.

“We call it the digital route because it is very new,” she said.

The trafficker, who earns around $1,500 (£1,130) for each migrant she traffics into or through Kenya (four times the average monthly salary of a Kenyan worker), spoke to us about her work at a secret location and on condition of anonymity.

For the last 15 years she has been part of a huge smuggling network that operates across Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and South Africa – mainly moving those fleeing Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia.

With Kenya having stepped up patrols on its roads, smugglers are now turning to Lake Turkana to get migrants into the country.

“Agents” on the new route, she said, received the migrants in the Kenyan fishing village of Lomekwi where road transport was organised to take them to Nairobi – a journey of about 15 hours.

Warning of the dangers of travelling on the rickety wooden boats, she appealed to parents not to allow their children to make the crossing alone.

“I won’t say I love the money I make – because as a mother I can’t be happy when I see bad things happening to other women’s children,” she told the BBC.

“I’d like to advise migrants if they’ll listen to me. I’d like to beg them to stay in their countries,” she said, further cautioning of the callous attitudes of many traffickers.

Osman, an Eritrean migrant who did not want to give his real name for security reasons, made the crossing at the same time as Hiyab and her sister.

He recalled how Hiyab’s boat capsized in front of his eyes not long after leaving the fishing village of Ileret as it was heading south-west to Lomekwi.

“Hiyab was in the boat in front of us – its motor wasn’t working and it was being propelled by a strong wind,” he said.

“They were about 300m [984ft] into the water when their boat overturned, resulting in the deaths of seven people.”

Hiyab’s sister survived by clinging to the sinking boat until another vessel – also operated by the smugglers – came to the rescue.

Ms Senait blamed the smugglers for the deaths, saying they overloaded the boat with more than 20 migrants.

“The cause of deaths was plain negligence. They put too many people in a small boat that couldn’t even carry five people,” she said.

During the BBC’s visit to Lomewki, two fishermen said they saw the bodies of migrants – believed to be Eritreans – floating in the lake, which is around 300km (186 miles) long and 50km wide, in July 2024.

“There were about four bodies on the shores. Then, a few days later other bodies appeared,” Brighton Lokaala said.

Another fisherman, Joseph Lomuria, said he saw the bodies of two men and two women – one of whom appeared to be a teenager.

In June 2024, the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, recorded 345,000 Eritrean refugees and asylum seekers in East Africa, out of 580,000 globally.

Like Ms Senait’s family, many flee to avoid military conscription in a country that has been embroiled in numerous wars in the region, and where free political and religious activity is not tolerated as the government tries to keep a tight grip on power.

Uganda-based Eritrean lawyer, Mula Berhan, told the BBC that Kenya and Uganda were increasingly becoming the preferred destination of these migrants because of conflict in Ethiopia and Sudan, which both neighbour Eritrea.

The female smuggler said in her experience some of the migrants settled in Kenya, but others used the country as a transit point to reach Uganda, Rwanda and South Africa, believing it easier to get refugee status there.

The smuggling network operates in all these countries, handing over migrants to different “agents” until they reach their final destination, which – in some cases – can also be Europe or North America.

Her job is to hand over those migrants who are in transit in Nairobi to agents who keep them in “holding houses” until the next leg of their trip is arranged and paid for.

By this stage each migrant has probably paid around $5,000 for the journey up to that point.

The BBC saw a room in a block of flats that was being used as a holding house. Five Eritrean men were locked inside the room, which had just a single mattress.

In the holding houses, migrants are expected to pay rent and also pay for their food – and the smuggler said she knew of three men and a young woman who had died of hunger as they had run out of cash.

She said the agents simply disposed of the bodies and called their deaths bad luck.

“Smugglers keep lying to the families saying their people are alive, and they keep on sending money,” she acknowledged.

Female migrants, she said, were often sexually abused or forced to get married to male smugglers.

She said she herself had no intention of giving up the lucrative trade but felt others should be aware of what could lie ahead of them.

It is little comfort for Ms Senait, who still mourns the death of her 14-year-old while expressing relief that her elder daughter survived and was unharmed by the smugglers.

“We have gone through what every Eritrean family is going through,” she said.

“May God heal our land and deliver us from all this.”

• East Africa hit by drought, yet Kenya’s Lake Turkana is flooding
• I recognised my sister in video of refugees captured in Sudan war
• ‘They threw her body into the ocean’ – woman dies on boat headed for French island
• ‘Try or die’ – one man’s determination to get to the Canary Islands

The Israeli military has said it “fully disabled” Yemen’s main airport in the capital Sanaa, which is controlled by the Houthis.

Tuesday’s strikes targeted three civilian planes, the departures hall, the runway and a military air base, airport sources told Reuters. An official told AFP that the airport had been “completely destroyed”.

The Houthis said at least three people had been killed and vowed to respond.

It comes two days after the Iran-backed Houthis fired a missile that landed near Israel’s main airport, forcing it to close briefly.

Israel began responding on Monday by striking the Yemeni port city of Hudaydah, then targeted Sanaa airport the next day.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that anyone targeting Israel would be held “accountable”.

In a video statement, Netanyahu said whoever attacks Israel “bears responsibility for his own blood”.

“Our choice of when to respond, how to respond and on which targets to respond is a consideration that we make every time,” he added.

Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, a member of the Houthis’ top political body, meanwhile told Houthi-linked TV that Israel’s attacks were “failed terrorism”.

“Support for Gaza continues, the response is coming, and Netanyahu must prepare his resignation,” he said.

The airport official said the three destroyed planes belonged to Yemenia Airlines.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it had attacked runways, aircraft and “infrastructure” at Sanaa airport. It alleged the Houthis were using the airport to “transfer weapons and operatives”.

Israel’s military said it also struck power stations in Sanaa, which it described as “significant electricity supply infrastructure” for the Houthis – as well as the al-Imran cement factory in the north of the city.

Meanwhile on Tuesday President Donald Trump said the US would stop attacking the Houthis after the group “capitulated”.

“[The Houthis] just don’t want to fight, and we will honour that and we will stop the bombings, and they have capitulated,” he said, speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the White House.

Shortly afterwards the Omani foreign minister posted that the US and the Houthis had agreed a ceasefire deal under which neither side would attack the other “ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping”.

The Israeli strikes on Tuesday followed its attack a day earlier on Hudaydah. The port is the second-largest in the Red Sea after Aden, and is the entry point for about 80% of Yemen’s food imports.

At least four people were killed and 35 others were wounded during Monday’s attack, the Houthis said.

The group blamed the US and Israel jointly for the attack, but a US defence official told the AFP news agency that their forces did not participate.

The Houthi missile fired towards Ben Gurion airport, near Tel Aviv, on Sunday landed next to an access road near the main terminal. Six people were injured, Israeli emergency services said.

Following the strike, the Houthis said they would impose “a comprehensive aerial blockade” on Israel by targeting airports in response to Israel’s plans to expand its military operations in Gaza.

Israel has launched several previous rounds of strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, including targeting a power plant and ports in January. It previously attacked Sanaa airport in December.

The US Supreme Court temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military while legal challenges to the policy move forward.

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump signed a pair of executive orders that enabled the Pentagon to implement the ban.

But a lower federal court blocked the policy in March, ruling that the administration had failed to provide evidence that transgender troops posed a threat to military effectiveness.

In an emergency application to the court, the Trump administration argued that the lower court should show deference to the military’s judgement in matters of national defence.

The court’s three liberal justices objected to the stay, which arrived via an unsigned order on Tuesday.

Trump’s executive order declared that identifying as transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honourable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle” and would hamper military preparedness.

In February, the Department of Defense announced it would begin discharging currently serving transgender personnel.

Seven servicemembers, including Commander Emily Schilling, a Navy fighter pilot, swiftly challenged the ban, along with a transgender individual seeking to enlist.

The plaintiffs argued that the ban “undermines military readiness, endangers our safety, and violates the United States Constitution”.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense,” Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which are representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice,” it said.

In March, a federal judge in Washington state ordered a nationwide halt on the administration’s ban, saying the government failed to show it would enhance “unit cohesion, good order or discipline”.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not block the lower court’s ruling, keeping the injunction in place.

With the Supreme Court order, that pause will lift while the servicemembers’ lawsuit makes its way through lower courts.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called the order “another massive victory in the Supreme Court”.

Early in his second term, Trump took a series of actions that have significantly impacted transgender individuals, whose gender identity does not correspond to the sex assigned to them at birth.

He signed an executive order declaring the US would only recognise two sexes – male and female.

The order has had far reaching implications for transgender Americans, especially those seeking to obtain official documentation.

The State Department announced in February that it would no longer allow applicants to choose “X” for their gender on their US passport, but instead must choose “male” or “female” based on their sex assigned at birth.

The passport policy is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a group of transgender and nonbinary individuals. In mid-April, a federal judge issued an injunction on the passport policy while the case proceeds.

The administration has also pushed for policies to restrict certain kinds of healthcare for minors who identify as transgender, and to prevent transgender women from playing on women’s sports teams.

Two weeks after a deadly militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India has launched a series of strikes on sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The Indian defence ministry said the strikes – named “Operation Sindoor” – were part of a “commitment” to hold those responsible for the 22 April attack which left 25 Indians and one Nepali national dead “accountable”.

But Pakistan, which has denied any involvement in last month’s attack, has described the strikes as “unprovoked”, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying the “heinous act of aggression will not go unpunished”.

Pakistan’s military says it has shot down five Indian aircraft and a drone. India has yet to respond to these claims.

Pakistan’s military spokesperson Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said at least 26 people were killed and 46 injured. India, meanwhile, said at least seven civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Delhi said in the early hours of Wednesday morning that nine different locations had been targeted in both Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan.

It said these sites were “terrorist infrastructure” – places where attacks were “planned and directed”.

It emphasised that it had not hit any Pakistani military facilities, saying its “actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”.

According to Pakistan, three different areas were hit: Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and Bahawalpur in the Pakistani province of Punjab.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told GeoTV that the strikes hit civilian areas, adding that India’s claim of “targeting terrorist camps” is false.

The strikes come after weeks of rising tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours over the shootings in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam.

The 22 April attack by a group of militants saw 26 people killed, with survivors saying the militants were singling out Hindu men.

It was the worst attack on civilians in the region in two decades, and sparked widespread anger in India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the country would hunt the suspects “till the ends of the Earth” and that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”.

However, India has not named any group it suspects carried out the attack in Pahalgam and it remains unclear who did it.

But Indian police have alleged two of the attackers were Pakistani nationals, with Delhi accusing Pakistan of supporting militants – a charge Islamabad denies. It says it has nothing to do with the 22 April attacks.

In the two weeks since, both sides had taken tit-for-tat measures against each other – including expelling diplomats, suspending visas and closing border crossings.

But many expected it would escalate to some sort of cross-border strike – as seen after the Pulwama attacks which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead in 2019.

Kashmir is claimed in full by India and Pakistan, but administered only in part by each since they were partitioned following independence from Britain in 1947.

The countries have fought two wars over it.

But more recently, it has been attacks by militants which have brought the two countries to the brink. Indian-administered Kashmir has seen an armed insurgency against Indian rule since 1989, with militants targeting security forces and civilians alike.

This was the first major attack on civilians since India revoked Article 370 that gave Kashmir semi-autonomous status in 2019.

Following the decision, the region saw protests but also witnessed militancy wane and a huge increase in the number of tourists visiting the region.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Neither spiralled, but the wider world remains alert to the danger of what could happen if it did. Attempts have been made by various countries and diplomats around the world to stop the current situation escalating.

Already, UN chief Antonio Guterres has called for “maximum restraint”, while US President Donald Trump said he hoped the fighting “ends very quickly”.

Joe Biden has told the BBC that pressure from the Trump administration on Ukraine to give up territory to Russia is “modern-day appeasement” in an exclusive interview, his first since leaving the White House.

Speaking in Delaware on Monday, he said Russian President Vladimir Putin believed Ukraine was part of Russia and “anybody that thinks he’s going to stop” if some territory is conceded as part of a peace deal “is just foolish”.

Biden, who spoke as Allied nations mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day this week, said he was concerned about US-Europe relations breaking down under President Donald Trump, which he said “would change the modern history of the world”.

In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Biden was challenged on his own record on Ukraine as well as his decision to end his 2024 re-election bid late in the race after a stumbling debate performance stoked concerns over his fitness and plunged the Democratic Party into crisis.

Biden dropped out less than four months before the November election, and when pushed on whether he should have left sooner and allowed more time for a replacement to be chosen, he said: “I don’t think it would have mattered. We left at a time when we had a good candidate.”

“Things moved so quickly that it made it difficult to walk away. And it was a hard decision,” he said. “I think it was the right decision. I think that… it was just a difficult decision.”

Asked about the current administration’s treatment of US allies, the former president condemned Trump’s calls for the US to take back the Panama Canal, to acquire Greenland and to make Canada the 51st state.

“What the hell’s going on here? What president ever talks like that? That’s not who we are,” he said. “We’re about freedom, democracy, opportunity, not about confiscation.”

• Joe Biden on Trump: ‘What president ever talks like that? That’s not who we are’

On Ukraine, Biden was challenged on whether he gave enough support to Kyiv to ensure they could win the war as opposed to just resist Russia’s full-scale invasion. During three years of fighting, his White House shifted its position on the use of US-supplied weapons and lifted some restrictions over time.

“We gave them everything they needed to provide for their independence, and we were prepared to respond, more aggressively, if Putin moved again,” he said.

Biden was also asked about comments from the Trump administration suggesting Kyiv must give up some territory in order to secure a peace deal that would put an end to fighting.

US Vice-President JD Vance recently laid out the US vision for a peace plan in Ukraine, saying it would “freeze the territorial lines… close to where they are today”.

He said Ukraine and Russia “are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own”. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has echoed that message, saying a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “unrealistic”.

“It is modern-day appeasement,” Biden said on Monday, a reference to the policy of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who sought in the late 1930s to appease Adolf Hitler’s demands in a failed attempt to avoid a catastrophic all-out war in Europe.

He also expressed concern that “Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America and the leadership of America”.

The continent’s leaders, he added, were “wondering, well, what do I do now?… Can I rely on the United States? Are they going to be there?”

Trump has said he expects Russia to keep the Crimean peninsula, which was illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014, and last month he accused Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky of harming peace negotiations when Zelensky rejected the suggestion.

Reports suggest recent US proposals for a truce settlement not only include formal US recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, but also de facto US recognition of Russian control of other occupied areas in Ukraine. The White House has not publicly confirmed the details.

“I have no favourites. I don’t want to have any favourites. I want to have a deal done,” Trump said last month when asked about recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea.

“Yes, of course, [the Ukrainians] are angry that they were invaded,” VP Vance told Fox News last week. “But are we going to continue to lose thousands and thousands of soldiers over a few miles of territory this or that way?”

The pressure to cede land is not just coming from Washington, with the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, telling the BBC last month that Ukraine may have to temporarily give up territory.

Discussing Putin, Biden said: “I just don’t understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to decide he’s going to take significant portions of land that aren’t his, that that’s going to satisfy him. I don’t quite understand.”

He also said he feared some countries in the Nato alliance that border Russia may “just say we’ve got to make an accommodation” to Putin if Ukraine ultimately gives up land.

Trump has long resisted continuing the level of US military support that Biden gave to Ukraine, arguing that his ultimate aim is to end the bloodshed. He has previously said Zelensky played Biden “like a fiddle”.

Tensions between the White House and the Ukrainian leader exploded into public view in February, when Trump and Vance berated Zelensky and demanded he show more gratitude for years of US support during an extraordinary televised meeting in the Oval Office.

“I found it sort of beneath America in the way that took place,” Biden said of the meeting.

Trump and his top officials have repeatedly criticised European countries for not spending enough on their own defence and relying too heavily on US support.

The US is by some margin the largest single donor to Ukraine, but European countries combined have spent more money, according to the Kiel Institute, a German-based think tank tracking support for Kyiv.

“I don’t understand how they fail to understand that there’s strength in alliances,” Biden said of the Trump administration on Monday. “There’s benefits… It saves us money overall.”

When asked about President Trump’s first 100 days in office, which has seen a whirlwind of executive actions as well as sweeping cuts to the size and spending of the federal government, Biden touted his own record and sought to draw a stark contrast between when he left office and now.

“Our economy was growing. We were moving in a direction where the stock market was way up. We were in a situation where we were expanding our influence around the world in a positive way, increasing trade” he said of state of the country when he left the White House in January.

Trump, meanwhile, says he is driving a needed overhaul of the world’s relationship with the US, rebalancing trade, controlling illegal immigration and making government more efficient. He celebrated the 100-day milestone with a triumphant speech last week. What does Biden make of the start to Trump 2.0?

“I’ll let history judge that,” he said. “I don’t see anything that was triumphant.”

Newly-released audio reveals the moment air traffic controllers at one of New York’s busiest airports lost communications with planes under their control – leaving one pilot asking, “Approach, are you there?”.

The pilot called out five separate times over a span of 30 seconds before the control tower was able to respond, the audio recorded by LiveATC.net reveals.

The tense moments at Newark Liberty International Airport led to multiple employees going on trauma leave, contributing to hundreds of delayed flights.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that communications were lost for 30 seconds, and that no planes were in danger.

A few others have estimated that contact was lost for up to 90 seconds.

“That’s 90 seconds of a wholly filled-up sky of planes literally flying blind over one of America’s busiest airports,” said New York Senator Chuck Schumer on Tuesday. “Thank God nothing happened, but we tempt fate if no changes are made.”

The audio released on Tuesday by LiveATC.net is between an air traffic control tower in Philadelphia, and pilots flying in the area around one of New York’s busiest travel hubs.

“Approach, are you there?” one pilot arriving from New Orleans says, to no response. After five further attempts, over thirty seconds, the tower responds: “I got you loud and clear.”

At another point, the control tower tells a United Airlines pilot: “I am gonna move you here because I just got told that the approach lost all the radars.”

“Three of their four radar screens went black and they have no frequencies.”

The pilot is heard calmly responding: “Alright, we’re ready to move.”

The incident on 28 April contributed to hundreds of delayed flights that continued into Tuesday.

Secretary Duffy said the outage was “a sign that we have a frail system in place, and it has to be fixed”.

The Federal Aviation Administration also acknowledged in a statement that “our antiquated air traffic control system is affecting our work force”.

Air traffic control operations at the airport in New Jersey have come under sustained criticism recently.

Last week, United Airlines announced it was cancelling 35 flights per day from its Newark schedule because the airport “cannot handle the number of planes that are scheduled to operate there”.

India has announced that it will stop its water from flowing over international borders.

“Now, India’s water will flow for India’s benefit, it will be conserved for India’s benefit, and it will be used for India’s progress”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Tuesday.

While he did not mention Pakistan specifically, Modi’s comments come about two weeks after India suspended a 65-year-old water sharing treaty with its neighbour.

Relations between India and Pakistan have declined sharply following a deadly militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir last month. India accuses Pakistan of backing cross-border terrorism – a charge Islamabad flatly denies.

On Tuesday night, India said it had launched missile strikes on nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Pakistan’s military said eight people had been killed.

India said three civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling on its side of the de facto border.

• Follow live: India launches air strikes on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Several rivers flow from India into Pakistan, providing vital water supplies to about 80% of farms there. Pakistani leaders previously warned that any attempt to stop the flow of water “will be considered as an act of war”.

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which governs the water sharing of six rivers in the Indus basin between India and Pakistan, survived two wars between the nuclear rivals and was seen as an example of trans-boundary water management.

Modi’s suspension of the treaty was one of several steps he took against Pakistan after the attack, which killed 26 civilians.

The PM did not elaborate on how India plans to use the excess water, and experts say the country needs to build more dams, reservoirs and lakes to store it, which will take time to build.

The escalation prompted the US to repeat its calls for calm.

“We continue to urge Pakistan and India to work towards a responsible resolution that maintains long-term peace and regional stability in South Asia,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday afternoon.

Mark Carney has told Donald Trump that Canada “is not for sale” as the president raised the prospect of the country becoming the 51st US state while welcoming the prime minister to the White House.

Carney won the election last month promising to “stand up” to Trump, who has imposed tariffs on some Canadian products and sometimes talks about annexing the country.

The former central banker responded with a firm but measured tone after the president proposed a “wonderful marriage” of incorporating Canada into the US.

Despite a strained relationship recently between the once-close neighbours, the two men also lavished praise on each other in what was a largely cordial Oval Office meeting.

Trump has imposed general tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico and sector-specific import taxes on cars, some of which have been suspended pending negotiations.

The US president, who accuses Canada of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl south, has levied similar duties on steel and aluminium.

Tuesday’s meeting was the first time the two had met since Carney won Canada’s general election on 28 April, a victory many have credited to concerns in that country about Trump.

• Live updates from Carney-Trump meeting

But the two leaders began with warm words, with Trump describing Carney as “a very talented person”.

He also hailed his guest’s election win as “one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics, maybe even greater than mine”.

Carney said Trump was a “transformational president”, with “a relentless focus on the American worker, securing your border, and securing the world” and said he had “revitalised” Nato.

But friction arose when Trump again argued that Canada would be better off as part of the US.

Carney came prepared with a carefully worded response.

“As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale,” he told property magnate Trump, likening Canada to the Oval Office itself and to Britain’s Buckingham Palace.

“Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign in the last several months, it’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale, ever.”

Trump replied: “Never say never.”

The US leader traced his own red line when a journalist in the Oval Office asked if Carney could say anything to persuade him to lift tariffs.

“No,” he replied. “It’s just the way it is.”

“This was a very friendly conversation,” he added. “But we want to make our own cars.”

Trump once again argued that the US was subsidising Canada’s military and did not need Canadian goods such as aluminium and steel.

He said he and Carney would discuss “tough points” at their meeting, but “regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada”.

Trump also criticised his visitor’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, with whom he had an adversarial relationship.

Still, he said the meeting with Carney was in stark contrast to another recent Oval Office “blow-up” – a reference to a disastrous visit from Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky in February.

Notably, Trump also downplayed the prospect of trade deals, even though his administration has repeatedly pointed to the over 80 countries the White House says are hoping to negotiate as a sign of progress.

“Everyone says, ‘When, when, when are you going to sign deals?,” Trump said. “We don’t have to sign deals, they have to sign deals with us. They want a piece of our market. We don’t want a piece of their market.”

Carney said that he “pressed the case” to Trump on lifting tariffs, and found him to be “willing to have that negotiation”.

“I think that’s the main thing. That doesn’t presuppose the outcome of the negotiation,” Carney added at a news conference at the Canadian embassy in Washington DC. “There’ll be zigs and zags. Difficult aspects to it. But the prospect is there.”

Carney did not speculate on timing, saying only that both leaders and their teams would speak again in the coming weeks.

Additionally, Carney said he again asked that Trump stopped calling for Canada to become a US state. He added that he believed it important to distinguish between “wish and reality”.

“He’s the president. He’s his own person,” Carney said. “He understands that we’re having a negotiation between sovereign nations.”

During Canada’s election campaign, Carney argued he was the leader who could fight Trump’s “betrayal”, as well as push back against US threats to Canada’s economy and sovereignty.

In his victory speech, the Liberal leader went as far as to say that the formerly tight US-Canadian relationship was “over” and that Canadians must “fundamentally re-imagine our economy” in the Trump era.

More than $760bn (£570bn) in goods flowed between Canada and the US last year. Canada is the US’ second-largest individual trading partner after Mexico, and the largest export market for US goods.

US and Chinese officials are set to start talks this week to try to deescalate a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will attend the talks in Switzerland from 9 to 12 May, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer will represent Washington at the meeting, their offices announced.

Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has imposed new import taxes on Chinese goods of up to 145%. Beijing has hit back with levies on some goods from the US of 125%.

But global trade experts have told the BBC that they expect negotiations to take several months.

It will be the first high-level interaction between the two countries since Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng attended Trump’s inauguration in January.

Mr Bessent said he looked forward to rebalancing the international economic system to better serve the interests of the US.

“My sense is that this will be about de-escalation, not about the big trade deal, but we’ve got to de-escalate before we can move forward,” he said in an interview with Fox News.

“If the United States wants to resolve the issue through negotiations, it must face up to the serious negative impact of unilateral tariff measures on itself and the world,” a Chinese commerce ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday morning.

Chinese state media reported that Beijing had decided to engage with the US after fully considering global expectations, the country’s interests and appeals from American businesses.

The report added that China is open to talks but reiterated that if the country decides to continue to fight this trade war – it will fight to the end.

The trade war has triggered turmoil in financial markets and sent shockwaves across global trade.

Two trade experts told the BBC that they were not particularly optimistic about the talks, at least in the initial phase.

“You have to start somewhere, so I’m not saying it isn’t worthwhile. Just unlikely to be the launch event people are hoping to see,” said Deborah Elms, Head of Trade Policy at the Hinrich Foundation.

“We should expect to see a lot of back and forth, just like what happened last time in 2018,” Henry Gao, Professor of Law at Singapore Management University and a former Chinese lawyer on the World Trade Organization secretariat said.

“I would expect the talks to drag on for several months or even more than a year”.

Financial markets in mainland China and Hong Kong rose on Wednesday as investors reacted to the news as well as announcements by Chinese authorities of measures to support the economy.

US stock futures were also higher. Futures are contracts to buy or sell an underlying asset at a future date and are an indication of how markets will trade when they open.

Investors are also waiting for the US central bank to make its latest announcement on interest rates on Wednesday afternoon.

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.

Two weeks ago, the photograph of a woman sitting motionless beside her husband’s body went viral across Indian social media.

It captured a moment of unspeakable grief – one that came to symbolise the 22 April militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in which 26 civilians were killed.

The woman in the photo was Himanshi Narwal, whose husband, a 26-year-old naval officer, was among the victims. The couple, who had been married for less than a week, were on their honeymoon when Vinay Narwal was shot dead.

But within days, Ms Narwal, who had been portrayed as the face of the tragedy, found herself at the centre of a hate campaign.

It started last week when she urged people not to target Muslims or Kashmiris as emotions ran high across the country.

Survivors of the attack have said that Hindu men were targeted, and that the victims were shot after the militants checked their religion. Indian security forces are still searching for the attackers.

Since the attack, there have been reports of Kashmiri vendors and students in other Indian cities facing harassment and threats, mainly from members of Hindu right-wing groups.

• ‘We are too scared to go back’: Kashmiris in India face violence after deadly attack

“People going against Muslims or Kashmiris – we don’t want this. We want peace and only peace,” Ms Narwal told reporters at a blood donation camp held by the family on what would have been her husband’s 27th birthday. “Of course, we want justice. The people who have wronged him should be punished,” she added.

It was her first public statement since a video of her bidding an emotional farewell over her husband’s coffin went viral. In it, the grief-stricken widow says with tears: “It is because of him that the world is still surviving. And we should all be proud of him in every way.”

Her appeal for peace sparked a swift backlash. Within hours, many of the internet users who had earlier mourned her loss were posting abusive comments.

Some accused her of dishonouring her husband’s memory as she refused to blame ordinary Kashmiris for the attack. Others made and shared unfounded claims about her friendships and relationships with Kashmiri men while studying at a university in Delhi. Yet more claimed that she had no right to speak about her husband’s death as they were only married for a few days.

As the online abuse continued, India’s National Commission for Women (NCW) wrote on X that the trolling was “extremely reprehensible and unfortunate”.

“Perhaps her reaction may not have gone down well with angry people. But any kind of agreement or disagreement should always be expressed with decency and within constitutional limits,” NCW Chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar wrote on X.

Journalist Namita Bhandare, who covers gender issues, told the BBC that it was “shocking” how much hatred Ms Narwal received for simply appealing for peace and calm.

She was viciously trolled because she “appealed for peace rather than succumbing to the narrative of revenge”, Ms Bhandare added.

Ms Narwal was not the only survivor of the attack to face online abuse.

Arathi R Menon, the daughter of a man from Kerala state who was killed in the shootings, was also trolled after she recounted her ordeal in front of the media.

Some people said that she spoke too calmly and didn’t display much emotion as she recounted her father’s death. Others found fault with her praising two Kashmiri men who she said helped her and took care of her “like a sister”.

“It is the same old story – women are always the easy targets,” says Ms Bhandare, adding that female victims of online abuse are also likely to be sexualised and threatened with violence.

“Being faceless online gives people the courage to say whatever they want,” she says. “And of course, there’s patriarchy at play, women are singled out, no matter who they are.”

Amid the abuse, Ms Narwal received support online as well.

“Your [Ms Narwal’s] statement in the face of that loss was an act of grace and unimaginable strength,” writer and activist Gurmehar Kaur wrote on X.

“My mother was your age when she lost my father in the [Kashmir] valley. I know this kind of loss.”

In 2017, Kaur, then a graduate student, became the target of a vicious social media campaign after she spoke against a Hindu right-wing student group after a clash at a college in Delhi. Many of the people who trolled her took issue with an earlier campaign by her where she said her father, a soldier who died in 1999, was killed by war, not Pakistan.

Journalist Rohini Singh welcomed the NCW’s statement supporting Ms Narwal, but asked why no action had been taken against the social media accounts “blatantly abusing and slandering her”.

Members of India’s opposition parties have also urged the government to act.

Priyanka Chaturvedi, an MP from the Shiv Sena (UBT) party, tagged federal Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw in a post, asking him to “stand with the widow of an Indian officer” and take action against the trolling.

No Indian minister has commented on the trolling campaign yet, and no police complaint has been lodged.

Meanwhile, Ms Bhandare says that, like many online hate campaigns, this too may follow a familiar pattern: “It will run its course and then the people will move on to their next target.”

On Wednesday evening, under the domed ceiling of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, 133 cardinals will vote to elect the Catholic Church’s 267th pope.

The day will begin at 10:00 (09:00 BST) with a mass in St Peter’s Basilica. The service, which will be televised, will be presided over by Giovanni Battista Re, the 91-year-old Cardinal Dean who was also the celebrant of Pope Francis’ funeral.

In the early afternoon, mobile signal within the territory of the Vatican will be deactivated to prevent anyone taking part in the conclave from contacting the outside world.

Around 16:15 (15:15 BST), the 133 cardinal electors will gather in the Pauline Chapel and form a procession to the Sistine Chapel.

All the while they will be singing a litany and the hymn Veni Creator – an invocation to the Holy Spirit, which is seen as the guiding hand that will help cardinals choose the new Pope.

Once in the Sistine Chapel, one hand resting on a copy of the Gospel, the cardinals will pronounce the prescribed oath of secrecy which precludes them from ever sharing details about how the new Pope was elected.

When the last of the electors has taken the oath, a meditation will be held. Then, the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations Diego Ravelli will announce “extra omnes” (“everybody out”).

He is one of three ecclesiastical staff allowed to stay in the Sistine Chapel despite not being a cardinal elector, even though they will have to leave the premises during the counting of the votes.

The moment “extra omnes” is pronounced marks the start of the cardinals’ isolation – and the start of the conclave.

The word, which comes from the Latin for “cum clave”, or “locked with key” is slightly misleading, as the cardinals are no longer locked inside; rather, on Tuesday Vatican officials closed the entrances to the Apostolic Palace – which includes the Sistine Chapel- with lead seals which will remain until the end of the proceedings. Swiss guards will also flank all the entrances to the chapel.

Diego Ravelli will distribute ballot papers, and the cardinals will proceed to the first vote soon after.

While nothing forbids the Pope from being elected with the first vote, it has not happened in centuries. Still, that first ballot is very important, says Austen Ivereigh, a Catholic writer and commentator.

“The cardinals who have more than 20 votes will be taken into consideration. In the first ballot the votes will be very scattered and the electors know they have to concentrate on the ones that have numbers,” says Ivereigh.

He adds that every other ballot thereafter will indicate which of the cardinals have the momentum. “It’s almost like a political campaign… but it’s not really a competition; it’s an effort by the body to find consensus.”

If the vote doesn’t yield the two-third majority needed to elect the new pope, the cardinals go back to guesthouse Casa Santa Marta for dinner. It is then, on the sidelines of the voting process, that important conversations among the cardinals take place and consensus begins to coalesce around different names.

According to Italian media, the menu options consist of light dishes which are usually served to guests of the residence, and includes wine – but no spirits. The waiters and kitchen staff are also sworn to secrecy and cannot leave the grounds for the duration of the conclave.

From Thursday morning, cardinals will be taking breakfast between 06:30 (05:30 BST) and 07:30 (06:30 BST) ahead of mass at 08:15 (07:15 BST). Two votes then take place in the morning, followed by lunch and rest. In his memoirs, Pope Francis said that was when he began to receive signals from the other cardinals that serious consensus was beginning to form around him; he was elected during the first afternoon vote. The last two conclaves have all concluded by the end of the second day.

There is no way of knowing at this stage whether this will be a long or a short conclave – but cardinals are aware that dragging the proceedings on could be interpreted as a sign of gaping disagreements.

As they discuss, pray and vote, outside the boarded-up windows of the Sistine Chapel thousands of faithful will be looking up to the chimney to the right of St Peter’s Basilica, waiting for the white plume of smoke to signal that the next pope has been elected.

In an exclusive and remarkably candid interview – the first since he left office – Joe Biden discusses what he really thinks of his successor’s first 100 days, plus his fears for the future if the Atlantic Alliance collapses

It is hard to believe that the man I greet in the Delaware hotel where he launched his political career more than half a century ago was the “leader of the free world” little over 100 days ago.

Joe Biden is still surrounded by all the trappings of power – the black SUVs, the security guys with curly earpieces, the sniffer dogs sent ahead to sweep the room for explosives. And yet he has spent the last three months watching much of what he believes in being swept away by his successor.

Donald Trump has deployed the name Biden again and again – it is his political weapon of choice. One recent analysis showed that Trump said or wrote the name Biden at least 580 times in those first 100 days in office. Having claimed that rises in share prices were “Trump’s stock market” at work, he later blamed sharp falls in share prices on “Biden’s stock market”.

Until this week, President Biden himself (former presidents keep their titles after they leave office) has largely observed the convention that former presidents do not criticise their predecessors at the start of their time in office. But from the moment we shake hands it is clear that he is determined to have his say too.

In a dark blue suit, the former president arrives smiling and relaxed but with the determined air of a man on a mission. It’s his first interview since leaving the White House, and he seems most angry about Donald Trump’s treatment of America’s allies – in particular Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

• Trump appeasing Putin with pressure on Ukraine, Biden tells BBC

“I found it beneath America, the way that took place,” he says of the explosive Oval Office row between Trump and Zelensky in February. “And the way we talk about now that, ‘it’s the Gulf of America’, ‘maybe we’re going to have to take back Panama’, ‘maybe we need to acquire Greenland, ‘maybe Canada should be a [51st state].’ What the hell’s going on here?

“What President ever talks like that? That’s not who we are. We’re about freedom, democracy, opportunity – not about confiscation.”

After just over 100 action-packed days of Trump there was no shortage of targets for President Biden to choose from.

But his main concern appears to be on the international stage, rather than the domestic one: that is, the threat he believes now faces the alliance between the United States and Europe which, as he puts it, secured peace, freedom and democracy for eight decades.

Just before our interview, which took place days before the 80th anniversary of VE Day, Biden took a large gold coin out of his pocket and pressed it into my hand. It was a souvenir of last year’s D-Day commemoration. Biden believes that the speech he delivered on that beach in Normandy is one of his most important. In it, he declared that the men who fought and died “knew – beyond any doubt – that there are things worth fighting and dying for”.

I ask him whether he feels that message about sacrifice is in danger of being forgotten in America. Not by the people, he replies but, yes, by the leadership. It is, he says, a “grave concern” that the Atlantic Alliance is seen to be dying.

“I think it would change the modern history of the world if that occurs,” he argues.

“We’re the only nation in a position to have the capacity to bring people together, [to] lead the world. Otherwise you’re going to have China and the former Soviet Union, Russia, stepping up.”

Now more than ever before that Alliance is being questioned. One leading former NATO figure told the BBC this week that the VE Day celebrations felt more like a funeral. President Trump has complained that the United States is being “ripped off” by her allies, Vice President JD Vance has said that America is “bailing out” Europe whilst Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has insisted that Europe is “free-loading”.

Biden calls the pledge all members of Nato – the Atlantic Alliance – make “to defend each and every inch of Nato territory with the full force of our collective power” a “sacred obligation”.

“I fear that our allies around the world are going to begin to doubt whether we’re going to stay where we’ve always been for the last 80 years,” Biden says.

Under his presidency, both Finland and Sweden joined Nato – something he thinks made the alliance stronger. “We did all that – and in four years we’ve got a guy who wants to walk away from it all.

“I’m worried that Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America, and the leadership of America in the world, to deal with not only Nato, but other matters that are of consequence.”

I meet President Biden in the place he has called home since he was a boy, the city of Wilmington in Delaware. It is an hour and a half Amtrak train ride from Washington DC, a journey he has been making for 50 years since becoming a Senator at the age of just 30. He has spent more years in government than any other president.

He was 82 when he left the Oval Office. His age has invited no end of scrutiny – an “at times addled old man” is how the journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson describe him in their book, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.

His calamitous live TV debate performance last June prompted further questions, as Biden stumbled over his words, lost his thread mid-sentence and boasted, somewhat bafflingly, that “We finally beat Medicare!”. He withdrew from the election campaign soon after.

Today, Biden is still warm and charismatic, with the folksy charm that made him an election winner but he is a much slower, quieter and more hesitant version of the leader he was once. Meeting with him in person, I found it hard to imagine he could have served for another four years in the White House, taking him closer to the age of 90.

I ask Biden if he’s now had to think again about his decisions last year. He pulled out of the presidential race just 107 days before election day, leaving Kamala Harris limited time to put together her own campaign.

“I don’t think it would have mattered,” he says. “We left at a time when we had a good candidate, she was fully funded.

“What we had set out to do, no-one thought we could do,” he continues. “And we had become so successful in our agenda, it was hard to say, ‘No, I’m going to stop now’… It was a hard decision.”

One he regrets? Surely withdrawing earlier could have given someone else a greater chance?

“No, I think it was the right decision.” He pauses. “I think that… Well, it was just a difficult decision.”

Biden says he went into politics to fight injustice and to this day has lost none of his appetite for the fight. Last year at the D-Day celebrations he warned: “We’re living in a time when democracy is more at risk across the world than at any point since the end of World War Two.”

Today, he expands on this: “Look at the number of European leaders and European countries that are wondering, Well what do I do now? What’s the best route for me to take? Can I rely on the United States? Are they going to be there?”

“Instead of democracy expanding around the world, [it’s] receding. Democracy – every generation has to fight for it.”

Speaking in Chicago recently, Biden declared that “nobody’s king” in America. I asked him if he thinks President Trump is behaving more like a monarch than a constitutionally limited president.

He chooses his reply carefully. “He’s not behaving like a Republican president,” he says.

Though later in our interview, Biden admits he’s less worried about the future of US democracy than he used to be, “because I think the Republican Party is waking up to what Trump is about”.

President Biden relished his role as the leading figure in Nato, deploying normally top secret intelligence to tell a sceptical world back in 2022 that Vladimir Putin was about to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine.

Since taking office President Trump has charted a different course, telling Ukraine that it must consider giving up territory to Russia if it wants the war to end.

“It is modern day appeasement,” Biden says of Trump’s approach.

Putin, he says, sees Ukraine as “part of Mother Russia. He believes he has historical rights to Ukraine… He can’t stand the fact that […] the Soviet Union has collapsed. And anybody who thinks he’s going to stop is just foolish.”

He fears that Trump’s approach might signal to other European countries that it’s time to give in to Russia.

Yet Biden has faced accusations against him concerning the Ukraine War. Some in Kyiv and her allies, as well as some in the UK, claim that he gave President Zelensky just enough support to resist invasion but not enough to defeat Russia, perhaps out of fear that Putin would consider using nuclear weapons if cornered.

When Putin was asked point blank on TV this week whether he would use nuclear weapons to win the war, he declared that he hoped that they would “not be necessary,” adding that he had the means to bring the war to what he called his “logical conclusion”.

I point out to Biden that it has been argued that he didn’t have the courage to go all the way to give Ukraine the weapons it needed – to let Ukraine win.

“We gave them [Ukraine] everything they needed to provide for their independence,” Biden argues. “And we were prepared to respond more aggressively if in fact Putin moved again.”

He says he was keen to avoid the prospect of “World War Three, with nuclear powers,” adding: “And we did avoid it.

“What would Putin do if things got really tough for him?” he continues. “Threaten the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This is not a game or roulette.”

Biden’s belief in the Atlantic Alliance of the last living President born during World War Two is clearly undiminished.

When he first arrived in the Oval Office, Biden hung a portrait of America’s wartime leader Franklin D. Roosevelt on the wall. He was born two and a half years after the defeat of the Nazis into the world FDR helped to create – a world of American global leadership and solidarity. But the United States voted to reject Biden’s policies and values and instead to endorse Donald Trump’s call to put America First.

The world is changing from what people like Joe Biden have taken for granted.

“Every generation has to fight to maintain democracy, every one,” Biden says. “Every one’s going to be challenged.

“We’ve done it well for the last 80 years. And I’m worried there’s the loss of understanding of the consequences of that.”