Donald Trump’s newly appointed defence secretary told allies on his first international trip that the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and that Europe would have to take the lead in defending Ukraine.

Pete Hegseth, speaking to defence ministers at a lunchtime meeting in Brussels, said Europe had to provide “the overwhelming share” of future military aid to Kyiv – and recognise that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders was unrealistic.

The Pentagon chief said he was “here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”, though the language was notably toned down from a draft briefed in advance to the press.

That had said the US was no longer “the primary guarantor of security in Europe” and appeared to suggest a recasting of the 75-year-old Nato alliance, created after the second world war to protect western Europe from the Soviet bloc.

But in a speech to the Ukraine contact group of defence ministers in Brussels, chaired by the UK’s defence secretary, John Healey, he softened the language – a day before he is due to attend his first Nato summit of defence ministers.

Hegseth said the US was shifting its military priorities to defending its homeland and deterring China, and he called on European Nato members to hike defence budgets to 5% of GDP to better defend the continent.

As an example, Hegseth said Europe “must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine” in the future – though he did not say the US would halt all its military aid, which has been critical in helping Kyiv resist the Russian invasion.

He also reiterated Trump’s position that “stopping the fighting and reaching an enduring peace” in Ukraine is a top priority – and that Kyiv must recognise that it cannot win back all the land occupied by Russia.

“We must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” Hegseth said, sketching out an initial position for any peace negotiations with Russia.

“Chasing this illusory goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering,” he added, though this could be interpreted as effectively acknowledging the annexation of Crimea, and large parts of the Donbas by Russia.

Kyiv would only achieve peace through “robust security guarantees”, but Hegseth ruled out Nato membership for Ukraine. Instead, peace would have to be secured by “capable European and non-European troops”, who he stressed would not come from the US.

Any British or European troops who did end up deployed in Ukraine would not be covered by part of a Nato mission or covered by the alliance’s article 5 guarantee, Hegseth added, meaning they would in effect be reliant on help from participating states.

Though Hegseth set out some positions for achieving peace in Ukraine, few experts believe there has been any serious diplomatic progress. Russia, which has been gaining ground on the battlefield, remains keen to press home its advantage and has demanded that Ukraine cede further territory and effectively be demilitarised as part of a deal.

Earlier this week, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, told the Guardian that Europe was not able to offer resilient security guarantees to Kyiv without the involvement of the US. “Security guarantees without America are not real,” he said.

A multinational deterrence force based in Ukraine after a ceasefire would need to be 100,000- to 150,000-strong, Zelenskyy said, though that would be far smaller than the 600,000-plus Russian troops in occupied Ukraine.

With many European militaries, including the UK, facing recruitment difficulties, it is not clear if it would be possible to constitute a force of that size without US involvement.

Departing from a pre-prepared text, Hegseth also emphasised that the US wanted to Nato allies spend 5% of their GDP on defence, and praised Poland for reaching this level. That would mean a doubling for the UK of defence spending – its budget is currently 2.33% of GDP.

Hegseth explained that the shift away from Europe was necessary because the US “faces consequential threats to our homeland” and was focused on border security. At the same time, he added: “We also face a peer competitor in the communist Chinese” able to threaten the American mainland and “core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”.

“The US is prioritising deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognising the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail. As the United States shifts its attention to these threats, European allies must lead from the front,” he added.

Hegseth’s positioning reflects priorities repeatedly stated by the US president that Europe must increase defence budgets and contribute to its own security, though they fall short of saying the US would not protect a Nato member if attacked.

Nato’s article 5 states that if one member state comes under attack, others have to be prepared to come to its aid. It has only been invoked once in the alliance’s history, when the US was attacked on 9/11.

The Kremlin has said that Russia will never consider exchanging occupied Ukrainian land for parts of its Kursk region, dismissing a proposal outlined by Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Guardian.

Zelenskyy revealed in an hour-long interview earlier this week that he intended to propose a straightforward territorial exchange with Russia to facilitate an end to the war, including the transfer of Ukrainian-held pockets of Kursk.

“We will swap one territory for another,” Zelenskyy said, adding that he did not know which part of Russian-occupied territory Ukraine would ask for back. “I don’t know, we will see. But all our territories are important, there is no priority,” he said.

Responding on Wednesday to the proposed exchange, Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, stressed that Moscow strongly rejected all offers to trade territory.

“This is impossible,” he told reporters at a daily briefing. “Russia has never discussed and will not discuss the exchange of its territory.”

Peskov added: “Ukrainian units will be expelled from this territory. All who are not destroyed will be expelled.”

Ukraine seized approximately 500 sq miles (1,300 sq km) in the Kursk region last summer in a surprise incursion that dealt a major embarrassment to Putin. In response, Russia has deployed tens of thousands of troops, including North Korean forces, in an effort to reclaim the territory.

According to open-source monitor groups, Russia has since reclaimed about half of the lost territory in the Kursk region while still controlling just under 20% of Ukraine’s land.

The two armies are engaged in a fierce and bloody battle for control of the Kursk region, now a key battleground in the latest phase of the war. Much of the fighting is centred around the town of Sudzha, which remains under Ukrainian control.

An estimated 2,000 Russian civilians are believed to be living under Ukrainian rule in the Kursk region, their fate largely unknown due to the lack of phone and internet signals, which has in effect cut off communication with the outside world.

Observers believe Moscow is eager to reclaim territory in Kursk as it seeks to enter expected US-brokered peace talks from a position of strength.

During his annual call-in with the nation in December, Putin assured Russians that their troops would eventually expel Ukrainian forces from Kursk but declined to specify a timeline.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has redeployed some of its most experienced troops to the region, aiming to hold on to the land as a bargaining chip.

The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was heckled during a visit to a US military installation in Germany as military families protested against the Trump administration’s rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

About two dozen adults who live at the military base chanted “DEI” and booed at Hegseth as he arrived to the US European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, NBC News reported.

Separately, a group of students attending the Patch middle school, also in Stuttgart, held a walkout, according to a letter from the school obtained by the Washington Post.

About 55 students at Patch “walked out in protest of recent events”, the letter read, demonstrating for 50 minutes before returning to class.

Protests led by military families are generally uncommon. A spokesperson at the Department of Defense did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment about the protests.

The actions were in response to a spate of anti-DEI initiatives Hegseth implemented. Since his confirmation last month, Hegseth has banned Black History Month celebrations and similar events. He has also restricted access to several books in defense department schools that children of US military families attended.

Hegseth has also announced in a memo that the US military will no longer accept transgender service members and ordered a pause on gender-affirming medical care.

“Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused,” wrote Hegseth.

“All unscheduled, scheduled, or planned medical procedures associated with affirming or facilitating a gender transition for Service members are paused.”

The school walkout was organized by an eighth-grade student at Patch, the Washington Post reported. The student told the Post that she and others decided to demonstrate while Hegseth visited as Trump’s executive orders have targeted diverse events at the school, including a school performance to celebrate Black History Month.

Students were also concerned about how Trump’s executive orders would affect the LGBTQ+ community, the student said.

“There was this great sense of community and belonging,” the student, who spoke anonymously due to concerns about potential backlash from Trump supporters, told the Post. “Like we’re not alone, because so many kids came out.”

Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel will resume fighting in Gaza if Hamas does not release more hostages by noon on Saturday, endorsing a threat by Donald Trump that could shatter the three-week-old ceasefire between the two sides.

Netanyahu’s ultimatum was delivered during a video address posted to social media account on Tuesday. “If Hamas does not return our hostages by Saturday noon – the ceasefire will end, and the IDF will return to intense fighting until Hamas is finally defeated,” he said.

It came a day after Trump told reporters: “If all the Gaza hostages aren’t returned by Saturday at 12pm, I would say cancel the ceasefire. Let all hell break loose.”

Netanyahu’s threat came as Trump hosted King Abdullah of Jordan at the White House on Tuesday for a tense meeting, where the two were to discuss the ceasefire and Trump’s plan to “take over” Gaza and expel the region’s more than 2 million Palestinians. Trump has said that he could withhold aide from Jordan and Egypt, two US allies, unless they agree to his plan.

In a quick back-and-forth with reporters before a closed-door meeting with Abdullah, Trump in effect endorsed an Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank and said there was “no reason to buy Gaza” because “we’re going to take it”.

Asked whether Saturday remained his deadline for Hamas to deliver all the hostages, Trump replied: “Yes.”

It was not clear whether Netanyahu is also demanding that all 76 captives still held in Gaza be released, or just the three hostages scheduled for release on Saturday under the ceasefire. The prime minister’s office did not immediately respond to a request for further information.

But the shaky ceasefire between Israel and Hamas after more than 15 months of fighting that has killed just under 47,000 Palestinians and more than 1,700 Israelis is close to collapse.

Since the deal was agreed, there have been persistent concerns over Netanyahu’s willingness to transition from the first to the second phase of the agreement: the far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has said he will quit Netanyahu’s coalition if the war does not restart after the first phase, which could force the prime minister to choose between his government and the deal.

Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the cabinet agreed that if three hostages were released on Saturday, as planned, then Israel would continue to commit to the ceasefire.

But in a sign that Israeli authorities may be preparing for hostilities to resume, Netanyahu also said on Tuesday evening that he had directed the Israeli army to increase reinforcements in the Gaza area “in preparation for various scenarios”.

“In light of Hamas’s announcement of its decision to violate the agreement and not release our hostages, last night I ordered the IDF to amass forces inside and around the Gaza Strip,” said Netanyahu. “This operation is being carried out at this time. It will be completed in the very near future.”

Hamas on Monday said it would delay the release of Israeli hostages indefinitely over “violations” of the ceasefire deal, prompting Israel’s defence minister to put the country’s military on alert with orders to prepare for “any scenario in Gaza”.

On Tuesday, Hamas had softened its stance, deriding Trump’s ultimatum and reiterating its commitment to a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas official, said: “Trump must remember there is an agreement that must be respected by both parties, and this is the only way to bring back the [Israeli] prisoners. The language of threats has no value and only complicates matters.”

In a statement late on Tuesday, Hamas reiterated that it was committed to the ceasefire deal, and claiming that Israel would be “responsible for any complications or delays.”

The Israeli security cabinet meeting to discuss negotiations on the second phase of the deal was brought forward on Tuesday and lasted more than four hours.

Smotrich, who voted against the ceasefire deal, appeared to support Trump’s comments. He wrote on X on Tuesday: “Everyone now.”

A day earlier, the army cancelled all leave for soldiers in the Gaza division, a move suggesting it has become more likely that hostilities could resume.

In Tel Aviv, protesters blocked roads on Monday night and Tuesday, demanding the return of all hostages, as some relatives accused the government of sabotaging the deal.

Replying to reporters’ questions in the West Wing, Trump overturned decades of US policy on Israel by in effect endorsing the annexation of the West Bank. “I think that’s going to work out very well,” he said, adding that it would “work out automatically”. “It’s in good shape. We discussed it, other people are going to discuss it with me. West Bank is going to work out very well.”

He also discussed his putative plan to “take over” Gaza and expel the Palestinians to neighbouring Jordan and Egypt.

Reversing previous statements, Trump said that he was not prepared to buy Gaza, but that “we’re going to take it, we’re going to hold it, we’re going to cherish it.”

Trump announced the Gaza plan late last week to the apparent surprise of Netanyahu and to his closest aides. Neither the Pentagon, nor the state department had made plans for a US military campaign or rebuilding effort in the Gaza Strip before Trump’s announcement.

But the plan has angered Arab states, who have said that the decision would effectively scuttle another of Trump’s key goals: establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Abdullah, who was sitting next to Trump, did not respond to questions about Trump’s plan to “take” Gaza. That would be discussed behind closed doors, he said, but said both sides should also “wait until the Egyptians can present ideas”.

Later on Tuesday, Abdullah said that his country would take in 2,000 sick children from war-torn Gaza but pushed back against Trump’s plan to take over the territory.

“I reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all,” he said.

Pressing ahead with steep tariffs on Canada and Mexico risks exacerbating the US housing crisis and threatening the broader economy, dozens of congressional Democrats have warned Donald Trump.

The US president, after threatening to hit imports from the US’s two biggest trading partners with a 25% tax, is weighing how to proceed after approving a one-month delay.

In a letter to Trump seen by the Guardian, Democrats noted that the US imports key construction materials worth billions of dollars – from lumber to cement products – from Canada and Mexico each year.

“Given the severe housing shortage, compounded by rising construction costs, persistent supply chain disruptions, and an estimated shortfall of 6m homes, these looming tariffs, while intended to protect domestic industries, risk further exacerbating the housing supply and affordability crisis while stifling the development of new housing,” they wrote.

In a statement, the White House claimed Trump would use tariffs to “usher in a new era of growth and prosperity” for the US.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, a move he has said will spur his country’s neighbors to work harder to reduce the number of immigrants crossing into the US, and stem the flow of fentanyl.

The proposed duties are sweeping, however – hitting all imports from both countries – raising concerns that they could raise prices throughout the US economy. Trump pulled back from the brink earlier this month following 11th-hour talks with Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico and Justin Trudeau of Canada.

US officials are in talks with both countries ahead of the new deadline, 4 March, when tariffs are now due to be enforced.

More than 40 Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by Jim Costa of California, urged the White House to consider housebuilding industry estimates that the proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, paired with duties already charged on Chinese goods, will raise the cost of imported construction materials by up to $4bn.

Such increases are often “passed on to consumers, directly contributing to higher home prices and a slowdown in new construction activity, further burdening American families”, they wrote.

“Immediate action will not only shield American families from escalating housing costs but also demonstrate leadership in steering our nation toward sustainable economic growth,” the representatives wrote to Trump. “We stand ready to work with you and other stakeholders to develop a balanced trade policy that bolsters domestic manufacturing while ensuring that safe, affordable housing remains accessible to all citizens.”

The representatives – all Democrats – stressed that they were looking forward to “collaborating” with the White House “on solutions that promote robust economic growth, protect American families, and secure a vibrant housing market for the future”.

Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said: “In his first administration, President Trump instituted an America First economic agenda of tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation, and an unleashing of American energy that resulted in historic job, wage, and investment growth with no inflation. In his second administration, President Trump will again use tariffs to level the playing field and usher in a new era of growth and prosperity for American industry and workers.”

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has placed onerous new restrictions on its scientists that people within the agency say could hamper the quality and availability of the world’s weather forecasts, among other key services.

The new requirements have created a sense of unease within the agency, according to current and former high-level Noaascientists and officials the Guardian spoke with, and alarmed partners at European agencies.

“My expectation is that it’s going to be a crackdown on climate,” said a senior Noaa scientist. “People are just somewhere between disturbed and terrified.”

Last week Noaa’s office of research sent a message to all staff saying that “effective immediately”, the agency’s headquarters will implement a new layer of oversight over its scientists’ email and “virtual meetings” with foreign nationals. The new restrictions also require all Noaa employees and affiliates to document “all international engagements” in an internal spreadsheet for approval by a Trump political appointee on a case-by-case basis.

“We haven’t stopped anything yet,” the scientist said, but “it’s a crazy amount of stuff to do. Working internationally is so routine, it’s just hardly thought of.”

“It’s a difficult time to be a federal employee right now,” said the scientist, who did not want to be named.

The Noaa directive did not outright bar its scientists from continuing ongoing international collaboration, but the additional administrative burden appears to be especially onerous for the National Weather Service (NWS) – the division of Noaa that underpins all weather forecasting in the US and provides a constant stream of data on the atmosphere and oceans to the world for free as a public good.

A climate scientist at the EU’s Copernicus agency, who did not wish to be named, said he was “appalled and saddened” when he heard the news last week. “The climate crisis knows no boundaries, and halting international scientific collaboration can only undermine our ability to understand and combat it.”

Staff within Noaa are also preparing for further budgetary and staffing cuts which would place further strain on the agency. According to reporting from CBS, “current employees have been told to expect a 50% reduction in staff and budget cuts of 30%”.

Before he was confirmed as the director of the office of management and budget last week, Project 2025 architect Russell Vought proposed a 38% budget cut for Noaa to “to curb excessive mission creep in key agencies, halt steadily increasing climate extremism within the department, and eliminate the prioritization of woke agendas”.

Other policy experts within Trump’s inner circle want to privatize the NWS. A recent study found that for every dollar invested in the National Weather Service, it produces $73 in value to the American people (and more to the world through freely available public data access).

Because the NWS is so valuable to society, Greg Carbin, who until recently served as the chief of the forecast operations branch for the NWS’s weather prediction center, said the restrictions at Noaa cannot be seen to be strictly a cost-saving measure.

“Cutting these services now would be a reckless decision that would cost far more in lives and damages than it would ever save on a balance sheet,” said Carbin. “Investing in weather and climate services is not a cost – it is an essential safeguard for the nation’s security, economy and wellbeing.”

The steps appear to be part of a larger coordinated effort by the Trump administration to reduce government spending and reprioritize federal efforts away from the climate crisis.

Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge), placed the head of Noaa’s human resources team on administrative leave and initiated an agency-wide purge of activities related to diversity, equity and inclusion. According to further reporting, Noaa staff have also been recently asked to compile lists of all climate-related programs the agency currently operates or funds.

Sources within Noaa say that the additional administrative burden, combined with an ongoing federal hiring freeze and additional anticipated staff and budget cuts, will hamper ability of the US to maintain a functioning public weather service. It could also result in a restriction in the freely available use of Noaa data abroad, which could have a profound global impact.

“Accurate forecasts protect lives, mitigate billions of dollars in disaster-related damages, and enable businesses, from agriculture to transportation, to operate more efficiently,” said Carbin.

European scientists who work with Noaa said they were worried by what they had heard from their US colleagues, but were waiting to hear what the changes would mean in practice for their work.

“One of the most concerning aspects of this situation is the availability of US datasets for environmental science, particularly in weather forecasting and climate science,” said Nicolas Bousserez, an atmospheric scientist at Copernicus, who was not speaking on behalf of the agency.

Bousserez, who has collaborated extensively with Noaa and Nasa, said it was not yet clear whether access would be restricted but that “such an extreme scenario remains plausible and could have significant consequences”.

The US has played an outsize role in climate and weather science for decades, particularly in fundamental climate observations, said Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at Maynooth University who has collaborated with Copernicus and Noaa. “It’s not as if in a worst case of Noaa going dark, everything would be sent into an existential crisis … [but] it would not be pretty.”

Noaa did not respond to a request for comment.

The NWS usually employs about 4,500 scientists and technicians but is struggling to keep itself fully staffed. Noaa has a sprawling mission that spans the entire globe, but is primarily focused on maximizing science’s benefit to society.

“If the proposed cuts to Noaa and NWS are enacted, the consequences will be severe,” said Carbin. “It will lead to less accurate and slower weather forecasts and warnings–putting lives and property at risk.”

One senior Noaa official estimates that “hundreds” of Noaa staff have already accepted a federal buyout offered by the Trump administration.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rubbished claims that Boris Johnson scuppered a possible peace deal between Ukraine and Russia in spring 2022, calling them “illogical” in an interview with the Guardian.

“There were several approaches with ultimatums and I never gave my approval for it,” said Zelenskyy of Russian demands for ending its full-scale invasion.

Johnson had nothing to do with his decision, said Zelenskyy, directly addressing the claims for the first time: “It doesn’t fit with logic; what was he supposed to be talking us out of?”

The story of Johnson’s visit and the supposed lost chance for peace may seem like a historical detail, but has fresh relevance as Donald Trump seeks to do a deal to end the war. Trump is expected to meet Zelenskyy soon, amid concerns in western capitals he may put pressure on Ukraine to sign a deal with Russia on terms beneficial to Vladimir Putin.

The Kremlin has used the Johnson story to suggest that Ukraine turned down a peace deal on western orders early in the war. Johnson himself has previously called the claims “Russian propaganda”.

The then British prime minister made a surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022, six weeks after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. He walked through the streets of Kyiv with Zelenskyy and publicly affirmed British support for Ukraine.

The idea that Johnson also used the visit to ensure Ukraine did not sign a peace agreement with Russia first emerged in an article in the respected Ukrainska Pravda outlet in May 2022, which said that Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had agreed on a broad possible agreement after a meeting in Istanbul in late March.

A week later, Johnson arrived with a message that “Putin is a war criminal, he needs to be pressured, not negotiated with”, according to one of the outlet’s sources.

In November 2023, David Arakhamia, a member of Zelenskyy’s own negotiating team in Istanbul, appeared to lend the idea credence. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said in a November 2023 interview.

Russian sources seized on these words, ignoring another part of the interview in which Arakhamia had said the Ukrainian delegation had not planned to sign anything in any case. In an interview with Tucker Carlson last year, Putin brought up the story, claiming it showed the west had pushed Ukraine further into the war.

“It seems very sad that they followed the orders or requests of Mr Johnson. As Mr Arakhamia said: ‘We could have ended these military actions a year and a half ago, but the Brits talked us out of it so we refused.’ And where is Mr Johnson now? And the war goes on,” said Putin.

“Putin likes this story a lot, about Turkey, these meetings,” said Zelenskyy, during an hour-long interview with the Guardian held in the presidential administration office in Kyiv on Monday.

In fact, said Zelenskyy, the real pressure to sign a deal had already dissipated by the time Johnson arrived in April, and Russian forces had already been pushed out of the suburbs of Kyiv.

“[Early on], there were people who wanted to kill me, there were shots fired … and in parallel with all this there was the ultimatum, and phone calls from different people,” said Zelenskyy.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators held several rounds of talks in Belarus and Turkey, but the conditions demanded by the Russians were always punishing, said Zelenskyy. “I said: ‘This cannot be. It violates the rights of our citizens, of the constitution. It would be a full betrayal. We will not submit to the ultimatums of Putin,’” Zelenskyy claimed.

Simon Shuster, a journalist who has written a biography of Zelenskyy, said he believed the Ukrainian president was serious in late March 2022 about trying to meet Putin and negotiate an end to the war based on a draft agreement reached in Istanbul.

However, key questions of territorial status were left unaddressed by the negotiators, and as the discussions were ongoing, the scale of atrocities in Bucha and other towns were revealed as the Russian forces withdrew from around Kyiv, prompting horror and fury in Ukraine and making any deal much less palatable.

Perhaps even more problematic was the fact that although several western politicians urged Ukraine to make a deal, none was willing to provide security guarantees to back it up.

“Ukraine was left to rely on Russia’s word. After Bucha, that seemed like a bad idea. Plus Ukraine had just achieved a big military victory, and Zelenskyy wanted to keep that momentum going on the battlefield. Boris encouraged him. But he was one relatively minor factor among many,” said Shuster.

Zelenskyy said the timing of Johnson’s visit meant that it made no sense to claim he had put pressure on Ukraine to fight on.

“You could imagine, it could be logical, that at the point when it was really difficult for us we would have been ready to agree to whatever. They are blackmailing us, Johnson comes and says” ‘We’re with you, stick with it, don’t give in to Russia’. You could imagine that somehow,” said Zelenskyy.

But by the time Johnson arrived, he said, the Russians had already been pushed away from Kyiv: “When Johnson came, we were walking around Kyiv together. We had already kicked them out of [the] area. So there is no logic to the idea that he could have pressured me. Pressured me for what?”

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rubbished claims that Boris Johnson scuppered a possible peace deal between Ukraine and Russia in spring 2022, calling them “illogical” in an interview with the Guardian.

“There were several approaches with ultimatums and I never gave my approval for it,” said Zelenskyy of Russian demands for ending its full-scale invasion.

Johnson had nothing to do with his decision, said Zelenskyy, directly addressing the claims for the first time: “It doesn’t fit with logic; what was he supposed to be talking us out of?”

The story of Johnson’s visit and the supposed lost chance for peace may seem like a historical detail, but has fresh relevance as Donald Trump seeks to do a deal to end the war. Trump is expected to meet Zelenskyy soon, amid concerns in western capitals he may put pressure on Ukraine to sign a deal with Russia on terms beneficial to Vladimir Putin.

The Kremlin has used the Johnson story to suggest that Ukraine turned down a peace deal on western orders early in the war. Johnson himself has previously called the claims “Russian propaganda”.

The then British prime minister made a surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022, six weeks after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. He walked through the streets of Kyiv with Zelenskyy and publicly affirmed British support for Ukraine.

The idea that Johnson also used the visit to ensure Ukraine did not sign a peace agreement with Russia first emerged in an article in the respected Ukrainska Pravda outlet in May 2022, which said that Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had agreed on a broad possible agreement after a meeting in Istanbul in late March.

A week later, Johnson arrived with a message that “Putin is a war criminal, he needs to be pressured, not negotiated with”, according to one of the outlet’s sources.

In November 2023, David Arakhamia, a member of Zelenskyy’s own negotiating team in Istanbul, appeared to lend the idea credence. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said in a November 2023 interview.

Russian sources seized on these words, ignoring another part of the interview in which Arakhamia had said the Ukrainian delegation had not planned to sign anything in any case. In an interview with Tucker Carlson last year, Putin brought up the story, claiming it showed the west had pushed Ukraine further into the war.

“It seems very sad that they followed the orders or requests of Mr Johnson. As Mr Arakhamia said: ‘We could have ended these military actions a year and a half ago, but the Brits talked us out of it so we refused.’ And where is Mr Johnson now? And the war goes on,” said Putin.

“Putin likes this story a lot, about Turkey, these meetings,” said Zelenskyy, during an hour-long interview with the Guardian held in the presidential administration office in Kyiv on Monday.

In fact, said Zelenskyy, the real pressure to sign a deal had already dissipated by the time Johnson arrived in April, and Russian forces had already been pushed out of the suburbs of Kyiv.

“[Early on], there were people who wanted to kill me, there were shots fired … and in parallel with all this there was the ultimatum, and phone calls from different people,” said Zelenskyy.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators held several rounds of talks in Belarus and Turkey, but the conditions demanded by the Russians were always punishing, said Zelenskyy. “I said: ‘This cannot be. It violates the rights of our citizens, of the constitution. It would be a full betrayal. We will not submit to the ultimatums of Putin,’” Zelenskyy claimed.

Simon Shuster, a journalist who has written a biography of Zelenskyy, said he believed the Ukrainian president was serious in late March 2022 about trying to meet Putin and negotiate an end to the war based on a draft agreement reached in Istanbul.

However, key questions of territorial status were left unaddressed by the negotiators, and as the discussions were ongoing, the scale of atrocities in Bucha and other towns were revealed as the Russian forces withdrew from around Kyiv, prompting horror and fury in Ukraine and making any deal much less palatable.

Perhaps even more problematic was the fact that although several western politicians urged Ukraine to make a deal, none was willing to provide security guarantees to back it up.

“Ukraine was left to rely on Russia’s word. After Bucha, that seemed like a bad idea. Plus Ukraine had just achieved a big military victory, and Zelenskyy wanted to keep that momentum going on the battlefield. Boris encouraged him. But he was one relatively minor factor among many,” said Shuster.

Zelenskyy said the timing of Johnson’s visit meant that it made no sense to claim he had put pressure on Ukraine to fight on.

“You could imagine, it could be logical, that at the point when it was really difficult for us we would have been ready to agree to whatever. They are blackmailing us, Johnson comes and says” ‘We’re with you, stick with it, don’t give in to Russia’. You could imagine that somehow,” said Zelenskyy.

But by the time Johnson arrived, he said, the Russians had already been pushed away from Kyiv: “When Johnson came, we were walking around Kyiv together. We had already kicked them out of [the] area. So there is no logic to the idea that he could have pressured me. Pressured me for what?”

Austria’s Freedom party (FPÖ) has ended coalition talks with the conservatives on forming the country’s first far-right-led government after disagreements over key posts and issues such as migration.

The FPÖ – which topped national polls for the first time in September – has been negotiating with the long-ruling conservative People’s party (ÖVP) since early January.

But cracks appeared last week, with the far-right leader Herbert Kickl insisting his party wanted to hold the interior and finance ministries – demands the ÖVP has rejected.

“Although we made concessions to the ÖVP on many points … we regret that the negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful,” Kickl said in a statement on Wednesday.

In turn, the ÖVP said the talks “failed due to Herbert Kickl’s thirst for power and uncompromising attitude”.

Had they been successful, the far right would have led the Alpine EU nation’s government for the first time, though it has previously been in power as a junior coalition partner.

Now that talks have failed, snap elections are likely, according to analysts, with the FPÖ polling well ahead of its rivals.

Conservative-led efforts to rule without the FPÖ after the September vote failed in early January and efforts to form a government reached a record length of time last week. The previous record, set in the 1960s, was 129 days.

In a statement earlier on Wednesday, the ÖVP said it wanted to have the interior brief, with asylum and migration issues moved into a separate new ministry. The FPÖ, in turn, rejected that proposal as “fraught with numerous constitutional problems” and “doomed to failure”.

Protocols from the negotiations, leaked over the weekend, also showed outstanding issues, including on EU policy and the treatment of asylum seekers.

The ÖVP wanted the FPÖ – which has criticised EU sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine – to clarify its position on Moscow, insisting a future government must see Russia “as a threat”, according to a confidential document revealed by the media.

Kickl is known for his harsh attacks on his opponents, including calling the Austrian president, Alexander Van der Bellen, a “senile mummy”.

The FPÖ leader has also caused controversy by calling himself the future “Volkskanzler” – the people’s chancellor – as Hitler was termed in the 1930s. He has denied this is a Nazi reference.

The FPÖ stands at more than 35% in voter opinion polls – up from the almost 29% it gained in September.

The ÖVP, which came second in September with 26%, has slumped to about 18% and is trailing in third place behind the Social Democrats in the polls.

Marriages in China plunged 20% to a record low in 2024 as young people resisted government efforts to convince them to settle down and have more babies.

Marriages in China dropped from 7.7m in 2023 to 6.1m last year, data from China’s civil affairs ministry showed. The figure was less than half the number registered in 2013, and the lowest since record keeping began in 1986.

The data also showed that 2.6 million couples filed for divorce in 2024, up 1.1% from the previous year.

The sharp dive in nuptials was amplified by 2023’s brief rebound as people caught up on weddings after several years of Covid restrictions. There was also speculation that people had avoided getting married in 2024 because it was an inauspicious “widow year” in the Chinese lunar calendar.

But the broader trend remained on track – stubbornly resisting the ruling Communist party’s push to reverse China’s demographic decline.

“It’s not that people don’t want to get married, but that they can’t afford to get married!” said one Changzhou-based commenter on China’s social media platform Weibo, which has had more than 46 million engagements about the topic since Monday.

China has the world’s second-largest population and for decades enforced tight restrictions on child birth, including a one-child policy. But now, as China faces a decreasing and ageing population, which threatens the country’s economic future, the authoritarian government wants people to have more children.

A big part of that push is trying to encourage more marriages. Births are tightly linked to marriage in China, with childbearing out of wedlock discouraged by traditional values and various government regulations.

But the decades of restrictions mean there are fewer people today who are of marriageable age – and those who are, aren’t interested in marriage or children.

“For many young people, not getting married is an active choice. At the same time, having their own lifestyle and enjoying single life is also a big reason,” said another commenter on Weibo.

“Women can support themselves and do not need to rely on men. The willingness to get married is much lower than in the past.”

Concerns over high youth unemployment, the skyrocketing cost of living, education and childcare, and a pushback against traditional gender roles have held fast against the government’s financial entreaties and policy overhauls.

“Collapsing marriage rates reflect a convergence of social forces: a declining population of young adults, a darkening economic outlook for recent graduates, changing attitudes towards marriage, and escalating gender polarisation between men and women,” said Carl Minzner, senior fellow for China studies at the Council for Foreign Relations, who described the drop in nuptials as “extreme”.

On Weibo commenters also noted how society appeared to have become “more tolerant” with some highlighting what they said was a shift in the level of pressure being exerted by families at recent Chinese new year gatherings.

“Ten years ago, what I heard most from relatives was about which daughter or son was not married by the age of 27 or 28. Now, what I hear is about those basically 30 years old and above. [Getting married before] 27 or 28 is no longer eligible for discussion.”

Many commenters also cited the controversial introduction of a divorce cooling-off period in 2021, making them wary of the “easy entry and strict exit” for marriage. Others noted China’s refusal to legalise same-sex marriage or provide equivalent rights to same-sex de facto couples.

“Why did the number of marriage registrations drop again in 2024? Because I am a lesbian,” wrote one woman.

Kanye West has been sued and dropped by his talent agency after he posted a stream of antisemitic abuse, put T-shirts with a swastika on sale in his online shop, and was alleged to have described himself as Hitler to a Jewish employee.

Last week West, also known as Ye, wrote a barrage of antisemitic posts on X including, “I’m a Nazi … I love Hitler”.

The swastika T-shirt was placed for sale on the website of his fashion brand Yeezy, with the product line “HH-01”, assumed to be code for “Heil Hitler”.

Shopify, the company that provided the online platform for Yeezy, has now taken the store offline, stating: “All merchants are responsible for following the rules of our platform. This merchant did not engage in authentic commerce practices and violated our terms.”

On Monday, the talent agency representing West removed him from their roster. Daniel McCartney of 33 & West wrote in a statement that his working relationship with West was over, “effective immediately … due to his harmful and hateful remarks that myself nor 33 & West can stand for”.

On Tuesday, a former staff member for West’s company – anonymised as Jane Doe – filed a lawsuit against him in Los Angeles superior court, alleging wrongful termination, and gender and religious discrimination.

The woman, who is Jewish, alleges a series of incidents between January and June 2024, including that he fired her after sending her a text message reading “Hail [sic] Hitler”.

Another alleged text message read: “Welcome to the first day of working for Hitler.” The woman’s lawyer, Carney Shegerian, described “a relentless and deliberate campaign of antisemitism and misogyny” from West.

West has not commented on the lawsuit, nor the actions of Shopify and 33 & West. The Guardian has contacted his management for comment.

Over the weekend, X allowed the antisemitic slurs to remain on its site, but later intervened when West began posting links to pornographic videos on his account.

Elon Musk, the owner of X, commented: “Given what he has posted, his account is now classified as NSFW [not safe for work]. You should not be seeing that any more.” West deactivated his X account later that day, writing: “I’m logging out of Twitter. I appreciate Elon for allowing me to vent.”

West has made antisemitic remarks for several years. In October 2022, he said he was “going death con 3 on Jewish people … You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.” After widespread condemnation, the sportswear brand Adidas cut ties with him, ending their lucrative partnership on Yeezy-branded trainers.

West continued to make antisemitic comments, telling rightwing pundit Alex Jones: “There’s a lot of things that I love about Hitler.” On X, he posted an image of a swastika intertwined with a Star of David. In response, X suspended his account for eight months.

The then US president Joe Biden put out a statement shortly after the comments, though without naming West, saying: “The Holocaust happened, Hitler was a demonic figure.”

In 2023, West apologised, writing in Hebrew on social media: “I sincerely apologise to the Jewish community … It was not my intention to hurt or demean, and I deeply regret any pain I may have caused.”

But at the weekend, West wrote: “I’m never apologising for my Jewish comments … I’m calm as ice this is how I really feel.”

Earlier this month, West made a controversial appearance alongside his wife Bianca Censori at the Grammy awards, where he told her to remove her fur coat, revealing a sheer minidress that left her essentially naked. Referring to the stunt, West write on X: “I have dominion over my wife.”

The rapper recently told a podcast host he had been diagnosed as autistic, and misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.

He is due to release his next album Bully in the summer. His last two, Vultures 1 and Vultures 2, released in 2024, reached No 1 and No 2 in the US chart respectively.

During historic floods last May that left more than 180 dead in Brazil’s southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul, the water rose to the ceiling of the Olindo Flores school in the city of São Leopoldo, destroying furniture, books and parts of its infrastructure.

When classes resumed more than a month later, its 500 students had to be relocated to another school for months.

On Monday, they were due to start the new school year but could not do so – this time because of an intense heatwave affecting the state. The start of the school year was pushed back after a court ruling on behalf of a teachers’ union, which had argued that classrooms lacked adequate ventilation and water supplies for students.

In recent days, the highest temperatures recorded in Brazilian cities have all been in Rio Grande do Sul, a state which is normally milder than other Brazilian regions closer to the equator.

Quaraí, a city of 23,500 inhabitants on the border with Uruguay, recorded the country’s highest temperature of the year on 4 February: 43.8C (110.8F), with a heat index of over 50C – the highest ever recorded in the state since measurements began in 1910. More than 60 municipalities in the state have declared a state of emergency due to drought.

Marina Hirota, a scientist and professor of meteorology at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, said that while it was still too early for in-depth analyses of the current heatwave, both it and last year’s floods are “potentially linked to the climate crisis”.

“These extreme events – heatwaves, cold spells and intense flooding like what happened in Rio Grande do Sul in 2024, followed now by an extreme drought – are becoming more frequent and more intense … and this frequency and intensity are the result of the climate crisis,” she said.

The teachers’ union said more than 70% of schools in the state lack air conditioning. Other schools have had air conditioning units for years but have been unable to install them because their electrical systems cannot support them.

Olindo Flores school in São Leopoldo was one of the few that had air conditioning, but the equipment was lost in last year’s floods and has not yet been replaced during reconstruction.

“We had classes in November and December, and there were some hot days – but nothing like this – and it was already difficult for teachers and students,” said Luiz Henrique Becker, 63, a sociology teacher at the school. “People were exhausted, unable to concentrate. Now, with this heatwave, resuming classes would be impossible.”

On Sunday, after the union’s request, a judge suspended the start of classes for at least a week. The government appealed, and yesterday, an appellate judge ruled that classes could resume on Thursday, when a cold front is expected to arrive.

“We will keep fighting for the government to install air conditioning in all schools because new heatwaves will happen,” said Rosane Zan, president of the teachers’ union.

Hirota, who is also a researcher with a tropical ecology group at the Serrapilheira Institute, said: “Last year, we had the floods, and now, we get this extreme heat immediately after … We’re becoming less and less able to predict these events because they never used to happen this way … For the living beings in these places – whether humans, animals or plants – it’s also becoming ever more difficult to adapt to such abrupt changes.”

Bacteria transferred between people during sexual intercourse could be used in forensic testing to help identify sexual assault perpetrators, an Australian study suggests.

Genital bacteria, similar to the microorganisms that make up the gut microbiome, vary between individuals. They are transferred to sexual partners during intercourse and leave specific signatures that can subsequently be detected, researchers found.

Study lead supervisor Dr Brendan Chapman, of Murdoch University, said the technique of tracing an individual’s sexual microbiome – or sexome, as the researchers have termed it – could eventually be used in sexual assault cases where no sperm is detected.

In Australia, 97% of sexual assault perpetrators are male, while one in five women over the age of 15 have experienced sexual assault.

“If there’s either no ejaculation, barrier contraceptive or a vasectomised male … that’s where this becomes really important as a potential second approach,” Chapman said.

The researchers homed in on a bacterial gene known as 16S rRNA, not present in humans. Its genetic sequence differs in bacteria found on different people.

Genital swabs from 12 monogamous, heterosexual couples before and after intercourse showed that a person’s bacterial signature could be identified on their partner after sex.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

The signature was still transferred even when a condom was used during intercourse, though in these cases most of the transfer was from the female to male partner. Chapman noted, however, unknown factors such as the timing of condom introduction during intimacy.

Pubic hair, oral intercourse, circumcision or lubricant use did not appear to affect the transfer of bacteria. Male personal hygiene following intercourse was a factor that might affect tracing, the study noted.

In one couple, a bacterial signature appeared to persist for five days after it was transferred between partners, Chapman said.

The researchers suggested the technique could increase the window for testing after a sexual assault “beyond what is currently possible” with traditional DNA analysis, in which the likelihood of sperm detection is highest in the first 24 hours after an assault.

Chapman, however, said the technique was “still some way off being used in the courtroom”, citing the need to finesse the uniqueness of bacterial signatures able to be detected. The research team also hoped to better understand the sexome in the absence of intercourse, as well as how it changed through the female menstrual cycle.

Dennis McNevin, a professor of forensic genetics at the University of Technology Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said bacterial genetic profiling could be used to corroborate or oppose testimony in alleged sexual assault cases where other DNA evidence was lacking or insufficient.

“DNA is always going to be the first port of call,” he said. He described bacterial tracing as a last resort because it “is going to take more time, it is more expensive – it’s a boutique analysis”.

The paper was published in the journal iScience.