European leaders holding emergency talks in Brussels are expected to agree on a massive increase to defence spending amid a drive to shore up support for Ukraine after Donald Trump halted US military aid and intelligence sharing.

Arriving at the summit, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was originally scheduled to join through a video link, said: “We are very thankful that we are not alone.”

The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who will present to leaders an €800bn (£670bn) plan to increase European defence spending, said it was “a watershed moment for Europe” and also for Ukraine.

Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, set the tone of the meeting: “Spend, spend, spend on defence and deterrence. That is the most important message, and at the same time, of course, continue to support Ukraine because we want peace in Europe.”

The show of unity could be spoiled by Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who has threatened to veto an EU text on Ukraine that seeks to push back against Donald Trump’s attempt to make a peace deal with Vladimir Putin that sidelines Europe.

The EU special summit was called last week, after Trump embarked on his direct diplomacy with the Russian president, but before the US president’s bullying encounter with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office and the suspension of US military aid.

EU leaders are expected to largely endorse the €800bn plan to “rearm Europe” outlined by von der Leyen earlier this week. “Europe must become more sovereign, more responsible for its own defence and better equipped to act and deal autonomously with immediate and future challenges and threats,” states the latest draft conclusions seen by the Guardian. The EU “will accelerate the mobilisation of the necessary instruments and financing” to boost security and “reinforce its overall defence readiness [and] reduce its strategic dependencies”.

Arriving at the summit, von der Leyen told reporters: “Europe faces a clear and present danger, and therefore Europe has to be able to protect itself, to defend itself, as we have to put Ukraine in a position to protect itself and to push for a lasting and just peace.”

The €800bn plan to boost defence spending includes a €150bn loan scheme, secured against unused funds in the EU budget, as well as greater flexibilities in the EU’s fiscal rules that could unlock €650bn in new spending.

In a seismic shift, Germany’s probable next coalition partners, the CDU-CSU and SPD, have agreed to change the country’s “debt brake” to allow increased spending on defence, heralding billions for armaments production. Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, the fiscal hawk turned defence spending advocate, met von der Leyen and the European Council president, António Costa, before the summit, although he is not yet at the table.

The current German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who represents Germany as coalition talks continue, said there appeared to be growing consensus on changing the German constitution to allow greater defence spending.

He gave a cool response to Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to allow European allies to shelter under the French nuclear umbrella, saying Europe should not give up on US involvement. Merz, however, has said he wanted to discuss with Paris and London whether British and French nuclear protection could be extended to Germany.

Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said the French proposal on nuclear deterrence should be seriously considered as part of a broader plan to co-ordinate European defence capabilities.

Europe had lost a lot of time, “but today everything has truly changed” Tusk said, referring to the commission’s proposals and recent meetings of European leaders in Paris and London. The war in Ukraine, the new approach of the US administration and the arms race initiated by Russia posed new challenges for Europe, he said, adding: “I am convinced that Russia will lose this arms race – just as the Soviet Union lost a similar arms race 40 years ago.”

EU officials said it was unlikely that leaders will agree a precise plan for European military aid for Ukraine for 2025, following a proposal from the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. Since Kallas set out her plan to get weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, amounts ranging from €20bn to €40bn have been floated.

Kallas said she hoped to see a political agreement on her proposal at Thursday’s summit, with numbers being filled in at a European Council on 20-21 March. Asked about Hungary’s opposition, she said her initiative could also be based on a “coalition of the willing” to avoid one country blocking everyone else.

Before Thursday’s summit, Orbán prompted an angry response when he called on the EU to follow Trump and enter direct peace talks with Putin, in a letter where he announced his intention to veto the summit conclusions on Ukraine.

The Lithuanian president, Gitanas Nausėda, said the EU needed to look at other ways of taking decisions, getting around opposition from one or two countries, “because otherwise history will penalise us”.

“It’s lasting too long, our inability to take decisions. And now it is the time [to act],” he said.

Absent from the EU draft text are proposals for new common borrowing (eurobonds), but the idea continues to circulate, despite opposition from Germany that Scholz reiterated on Thursday.

“The European Union will truly turn a page on a Europe of defence,” said a senior EU official before the meeting, referring to Thursday’s summit. “Is this the end of the story? No I don’t think so.”

Large majorities in five western European countries think Donald Trump is a threat to peace and security in Europe, a survey has found, after the US president assailed Volodymyr Zelenskyy and suspended military aid to Ukraine.

The YouGov polling of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK was carried out in a dramatic week that left Europe’s leaders scrambling to respond to the prospect of the US pulling long-term support from Ukraine and its European allies.

As the EU debates an €800bn plan to “rearm” Europe, the survey found that only a minority of respondents believed the remaining western allies would be able to support Ukraine if the US withdrew – but relatively few backed greater defence spending.

Most Europeans think it is unacceptable to exclude Kyiv or Europe from peace talks and, while many think Russia would probably attack Ukraine again even after a deal, opinions are divided on Franco-British proposals to deploy European peacekeepers.

After Trump’s apparent alignment with Russia, the polling, carried out between 26 February and 4 March, found majorities in all five countries believed the US president had become a “very big or fairly big threat to peace and security in Europe”.

That sentiment was weakest in Italy at 58%, rising to 69% in France, 74% in Germany, 75% in Spain and 78% in the UK. By comparison, the share of people who said Russia’s Vladimir Putin was a threat ran from 74% in Italy to 89% in the UK.

Trump’s popularity, tested across four countries but not Germany, was also exceptionally low, with majorities ranging from 80% in the UK to 63% in Italy saying they held an unfavourable view of Trump, against a range of 89% to 77% for Putin.

Europeans have become markedly less willing to support the US militarily in the event of it coming under attack, the polling showed, and are also significantly more sceptical that Washington would honour its collective defence commitments under the Nato treaty.

If Russia were to attack the Baltic states and Poland, only between 18% and 39% of people in the UK, France, Spain and Italy believed the US would go to their aid – although people were more confident the US would defend their own respective countries.

Few Europeans think the remaining western allies would be able to support Ukraine enough for it to keep defending itself if the US pulls out: a third of Spaniards (35%) and Britons (33%), and a quarter (24-25%) in France, Germany and Italy.

Many people say they want Ukraine to win the war. In the UK, 67% share that sentiment and say they care a great deal or fair amount that it does, followed by Spain (57%), Germany (52%), France (50%) and Italy (34%). Only 2-7% want a Russian victory.

But while similarly large numbers say current levels of support are not enough to stop Moscow from winning, only a minority in each think that their own country should boost its aid efforts, ranging from 9% in Italy to 24% in the UK.

After European leaders stressed the need for a major and urgent increase in defence spending, recognition that defence budgets would have to rise in the face of uncertain US support has risen, although not to a particularly striking extent.

Britons are the most likely to say so at 46% (up six points), against 39% in France (up 12), 32% in Spain (up six), and just 11% in Italy (unchanged). In December 45% of Germans, who were not asked the question this time, said spending was too low.

The US administration’s decision to seek a peace deal directly with Russia is very unpopular, with majorities (52-78%) in Britain, Spain, France and Italy seeing the exclusion of Ukraine as unacceptable. Large numbers felt the same about Europe.

Most Britons (65%) and Spaniards (55%) think Russia would probably attack Ukraine within 10 years of any peace deal, as do 49% of French respondents and 48% of Germans. Italians were split, with 35% thinking another war likely and 37% not.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, and Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, have proposed stationing European peacekeepers in Ukraine to counter such an eventuality, and more people support the idea than not in both countries.

About 52% of Britons back the plan, compared with 27% who were opposed, with French respondents 49% for and 29% against. Spaniards were also supportive (53%), but only 36% and 37% were willing in Germany and Italy, with 45% and 47% opposed.

The survey also revealed a widespread belief that Russia would attack other European countries within the next decade. Six in 10 Britons thought this was likely, as did 44-47% of respondents in France, Germany and Spain, though 45% of Italians thought it unlikely.

A European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to secure the skies from Russian attacks on Kyiv and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, according to a plan drawn up by military experts.

Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure, potentially operating as part of the “truce in the sky” proposed by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this week.

It would cover Ukraine’s three operating nuclear power plants and the cities of Odesa and Lviv, but not the frontline or the east of the country – and, according to a newly published paper, it could “achieve greater military, political, and socioeconomic impact than 10,000 European ground troops”.

Supporters include Philip Breedlove, a former US Air Force general and Nato supreme commander in Europe, and Sir Richard Shirreff, a former British army general and deputy Nato supreme commander at the beginning of the last decade, as well as former Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski.

Another backer, Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister, said in a statement: “The implementation of Sky Shield would be an important component of Europe’s stepping up, guaranteeing Ukraine’s security effectively and efficiently.”

Though variants of the proposal have been discussed without making progress since Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a fresh version of the plan has gained renewed impetus this week after Zelenskyy’s acrimonious meeting with US president Donald Trump on Friday.

Since then the US has halted military aid and curbed intelligence sharing with Kyiv, prompting a rapid realisation in Europe that the continent will have to take the lead in supporting Ukraine while the war continues and by providing security guarantees to the country as part of any peace deal.

It is understood Sky Shield has been drawn up by former RAF planners working in conjunction with Ukraine’s armed forces, and it has been canvassed before European defence ministries. However, there has been no real appetite from European leaders to sanction patrols of Ukrainian skies while the war is ongoing.

Those involved believe the pace of events in the last week means that ideas about protecting some of Ukraine’s airspace can now get a fresh hearing, though the plan also serves to highlight how important and efficient air protection would be as part of providing security guarantees to Kyiv in the event of a ceasefire.

The concern in western political circles is that it would risk placing fighter jets from Nato member states directly in conflict with Russia, and could lead to a dangerous escalation of hostilities if a jet from either side was attacked or shot down.

However, backers of the scheme argue the “risk to Sky Shield pilots is low” because Moscow has not dared to fly its combat jets beyond the existing front lines since early 2022. The de facto separation from Russian aircraft would be “more than 200km” according to the scheme’s designers.

Russia routinely attacks Ukraine with missiles and long range drones and the belief is that fighter patrols could help Kyiv eliminate them. Knocking them out is a burden on Kyiv’s existing air defence, some of which – most notably Patriot interceptors – are manufactured in the US and whose resupply is covered by the White House ban.

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s military said 181 drones and four missiles had been launched by Russia. Though most of the drones were shot down, one person was killed in the southern city of Odesa and infrastructure was targeted in the region, the local authorities said.

Ukraine has fewer missiles than Russia but has used US Atacms and Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets inside Russia since the autumn. It has also conducted a string of long range drone attacks on military and other infrastructure, such as refineries.

Donald Trump is poised to pull back from his trade war with Canada and Mexico, according to one of his top officials, temporarily delaying tariffs on many goods from the two countries once again.

Two days after imposing sweeping tariffs on all imports from his country’s closest trading partners, the US president is said to be preparing to shelve duties on a wide range of products until April.

Trump has already softened the attack on Canada and Mexico, granting carmakers a one-month reprieve after they warned of widespread disruption. Top retail CEOs have also been bracing customers for significant price increases in grocery stores within days.

Senior administration figures have indicated that Trump is now planning a broader reprieve, potentially halting the tariffs on all products covered by an existing trade deal between the US, Mexico and Canada known as USMCA.

It is “likely” that relief “will cover all USMCA compliant goods and services”, Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, told the news network CNBC on Thursday, “so that which is part of President Trump’s deal with Canada and Mexico are likely to get an exemption from these tariffs”.

He added: “The reprieve is for one month.”

During the president’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday evening, he acknowledged that tariffs would cause disruption. There will be “a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that”, he said.

Trump had initially pledged to target Canada and Mexico with tariffs on his first day back in office. Upon his return, however, he said he was considering imposing the tariffs at the start of February. Last month, he offered Canada and Mexico a one-month delay at the 11th hour.

Only on Tuesday did he pull the trigger, imposing 25% duties all goods from Mexico, and 25% duties on most goods from Canada, with 10% duties on Canadian energy products. He also doubled a tariff on Chinese exports from 10% to 20%.

Trump and his allies claim that higher tariffs on US imports from across the world will help “Make America great again”, by enabling it to obtain political and economic concessions from allies and rivals on the global stage.

But businesses, both inside the US and worldwide, have warned of significant damage to companies and consumers if the Trump administration pushes ahead with this strategy.

The president has repeatedly vowed to reduce the US trade deficit – the gap between what it exports to the world and imports from it – which hit a record $131.4bn in January.

Trump blamed the game on Joe Biden, his predecessor, on social media. “I will change that!!!”

China’s ministry of foreign affairs has promised that China will “fight to the end” with the US in a “tariff war, trade war or any other war”, marking China’s strongest rhetoric on US president Donald Trump since he entered the White House.

On Tuesday, in response to Trump imposing an extra 10% tariff on Chinese goods, taking the cumulative duty to 20%, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said: “Exerting extreme pressure on China is the wrong target and the wrong calculation … If the US has other intentions and insists on a tariff war, trade war or any other war, China will fight to the end. We advise the US to put away its bullying face and return to the right track of dialogue and cooperation as soon as possible.”

The comments about “any other war” were shared on X by the spokesperson for ministry of foreign affairs. The post was then re-posted by the Chinese embassy in the United States. The embassy reiterated the message, writing: “If war is what the US wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end.”

Asked on Wednesday to clarify what he meant by “any other war”, Lin said: “If the US has other intentions and insists on damaging China’s interests, we will fight to the end. We advise the US to put away its bullying face and return to the right track of dialogue and cooperation as soon as possible.”

China strongly objects to Trump’s attempts to link the tariffs to the flow of fentanyl from China to the US. Lin said that the fentanyl issue was “an excuse” for the US to impose harsh trade measures on China.

China retaliated this week by imposing duties of up to 15% on a range of US agricultural products.

On Wednesday, China’s State Council published a white paper titled: “Controlling Fentanyl-Related Substances – China’s Contribution”. The paper said that “China rigorously meets its international drug control obligations” and that counter-narcotics operations are “a central focus of cooperation between China and the US”. In 2019, China scheduled all forms of fentanyl, making it the only major country to permanently include the drugs on a list of controlled substances. But the White House says that “Chinese officials have failed to take the actions necessary to stem the flow of precursor chemicals” to organised crime groups such as drugs cartels in Mexico.

Lin’s fiery comments come as China is hosting its biggest annual political event, the two sessions. The name refers to parallel meetings of China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress, and a top advisory body. The events are tightly choreographed and normally do not include aggressive “wolf warrior” rhetoric such as Lin’s comments. At the opening ceremony of the NPC, Premier Li Qiang delivered the government’s work report, which said that the world was seeing “changes unseen in a century”.

Hamas has accused Donald Trump of seeking to undermine the shaky pause in hostilities in Gaza with his latest intervention in the region: a new and fierce ultimatum telling the group to release all hostages.

The militant Islamist organisation said Trump’s threats constituted support for attempts by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to back out of the ceasefire agreement.

“These threats complicate matters … and encourage [Israel] to avoid implementing its terms,” the Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qasim said in a statement on Thursday.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump told Hamas to “release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you”.

Fighting in Gaza has been halted since 19 January under a truce arranged with US support and Qatari and Egyptian mediators, and Hamas has exchanged 33 Israeli hostages and five Thais for about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees.

However, the first phase of the ceasefire ended on Saturday and talks on the second phase have stalled.

The US president’s post came hours after the White House confirmed the US had entered direct negotiations with Hamas, potentially bypassing Israel to secure the release of US hostages still held by the group.

“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye,” Trump wrote in his social media post on Wednesday, in an apparent reference to the beginning of direct talks with the group.

Official Israeli reaction to that development was limited to a single-sentence statement late on Wednesday stating that “Israel has expressed to the US its position regarding direct talks with Hamas”.

Trump’s ultimatum followed a White House meeting between the US president and a group of hostages recently released by Hamas.

Hamas seized about 250 hostages during the surprise raid into Israel in October 2023 that triggered the war. Approximately 1,200, mostly civilians, were killed during that attack. Fifty-nine hostages are still held by Hamas, though Israeli intelligence services believe more than half are dead.

Hamas says it wants to proceed to second-phase negotiations that could lead to a permanent end to the war with the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the devastated Palestinian territory and the release of all hostages.

Trump reiterated his support for Israel and referred to a recent decision to provide billions more in support for Israeli arms sales. “I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say,” Trump wrote.

“This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance.” He added: “Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!”

Trump also made clear there could be repercussions for Gaza as a whole, where more than 48,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed and vast swathes of the territory laid waste during the 16-month Israeli offensive.

Since the end of the first phase of the ceasefire, Israel has imposed a total blockade on all goods entering Gaza, demanding Hamas release the remaining hostages without beginning negotiations to end the war.

Aid agencies say the humanitarian crisis in the territory remains acute, with needs barely met by the increased flow of aid in late January and last month.

Trump wrote: “To the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD!”

Hamas has confirmed the talks with the US, saying there had been two direct meetings between US officials and Hamas in Doha, the Qatari capital, in recent days. White House officials have said Israel was consulted on the “ongoing … discussions” with Hamas.

Israel’s consul general in New York, Ofir Akunis, sought to downplay the contacts in an interview with Fox News. “There is a new attitude from the White House … against Hamas. They can talk with Hamas, that’s OK,” he told the network.

“I think that the main thing is that President Trump actually changed the whole idea. Instead of putting Israel under pressure, President Trump is putting Hamas under pressure, and this is the right thing to do,” Akunis said, in comments widely reported in Israel.

The US has never before engaged with Hamas, which it declared a terrorist organisation in 1997.

Talks about the second phase of the ceasefire that were supposed to start weeks ago have been repeatedly postponed.

Many analysts have warned that Netanyahu had little intention of maintaining the agreement because a definitive end to the conflict could threaten his hold on political power within Israel.

With Trump in the White House, Netanyahu and his close advisers may also believe they can secure better terms or even the release of more hostages without major concessions.

Gideon Saar, Israel’s foreign minister, has denied Israel breached the ceasefire deal by not advancing to stage two talks. He said there was “no automaticity” between the stages and accused Hamas of violating the agreement to allow aid into Gaza by seizing most of the supplies for its own benefit.

Trump, who previously warned there would be “hell to pay” in the region unless the remaining hostages were released, was widely credited with forcing Netanyahu to agree to the ceasefire plan.

Fifa is to consider a proposal to expand the 2030 men’s World Cup to 64 teams, an adjustment that would mean more than a quarter of its 211 member associations would take part.

The idea was raised at a meeting of the Fifa Council on Wednesday as part of any other business. According to reporting in the New York Times, the delegate was Ignacio Alonso, the president of the Uruguayan Football Association. Uruguay will be one of three South American countries to host a “centenary celebration match” in 2030. Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, agreed to explore the idea further.

A Fifa spokesperson told the Guardian it had a duty to consider all requests from Council members: “A proposal to analyse a 64-team Fifa World Cup to celebrate the centenary of the Fifa World Cup in 2030 was spontaneously raised by a Fifa Council member in the ‘miscellaneous’ agenda item near the end of the Fifa Council meeting held on 5 March 2025,. The idea was acknowledged as Fifa has a duty to analyse any proposal from one of its Council members.”

Infantino has consistently sought to extend and expand the influence of what was already the most coveted prize in sport since he was elected Fifa president in 2016. A proposal to stage the World Cup every two years was abandoned but next year’s World Cup in Mexico, Canada and the US will bring an increase from 32 countries to 48, with the number of matches rising from 64 to 104.

Spain, Portgual and Morocco are to act as joint hosts in 2030, with centenary matches in Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay. The addition of 16 further teams would create substantial logistical challenges for the hosts, not least the duration of the tournament, which would probably run for at least six weeks. Questions over the carbon footprint of such an event would grow larger.

The politics of an expanded World Cup reveal the differing priorities of competing nations and confederations. In South America an increase in participating numbers could effectively mean the end of qualifying rounds, which would in turn hit the resources of national associations who receive revenue from those matches, and as many as half of Uefa’s 55 nations would be expected to qualify. In Asia, Africa and Oceania an expansion of places would probably be received positively, with a number of countries likely to make their World Cup debuts as a result.

Fifa is to consider a proposal to expand the 2030 men’s World Cup to 64 teams, an adjustment that would mean more than a quarter of its 211 member associations would take part.

The idea was raised at a meeting of the Fifa Council on Wednesday as part of any other business. According to reporting in the New York Times, the delegate was Ignacio Alonso, the president of the Uruguayan Football Association. Uruguay will be one of three South American countries to host a “centenary celebration match” in 2030. Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, agreed to explore the idea further.

A Fifa spokesperson told the Guardian it had a duty to consider all requests from Council members: “A proposal to analyse a 64-team Fifa World Cup to celebrate the centenary of the Fifa World Cup in 2030 was spontaneously raised by a Fifa Council member in the ‘miscellaneous’ agenda item near the end of the Fifa Council meeting held on 5 March 2025,. The idea was acknowledged as Fifa has a duty to analyse any proposal from one of its Council members.”

Infantino has consistently sought to extend and expand the influence of what was already the most coveted prize in sport since he was elected Fifa president in 2016. A proposal to stage the World Cup every two years was abandoned but next year’s World Cup in Mexico, Canada and the US will bring an increase from 32 countries to 48, with the number of matches rising from 64 to 104.

Spain, Portgual and Morocco are to act as joint hosts in 2030, with centenary matches in Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay. The addition of 16 further teams would create substantial logistical challenges for the hosts, not least the duration of the tournament, which would probably run for at least six weeks. Questions over the carbon footprint of such an event would grow larger.

The politics of an expanded World Cup reveal the differing priorities of competing nations and confederations. In South America an increase in participating numbers could effectively mean the end of qualifying rounds, which would in turn hit the resources of national associations who receive revenue from those matches, and as many as half of Uefa’s 55 nations would be expected to qualify. In Asia, Africa and Oceania an expansion of places would probably be received positively, with a number of countries likely to make their World Cup debuts as a result.

South Korea’s air force has apologised after one of its fighter jets accidentally dropped eight bombs in the wrong place during a training exercise on Thursday, injuring 15 civilians and damaging several buildings.

“Eight MK-82 general purpose bombs were abnormally released from an air force KF-16 aircraft, landing outside the designated firing range,” the air force said, adding that the bombs weighed about 225kg each.

“We deeply regret the unintended release of the bombs, which resulted in civilian casualties, and wish those injured a swift recovery,” the air force said in a statement.

The incident occurred at about 10am local time (0100 GMT) in the village of Nogok-ri, part of the city of Pocheon, 16 miles (25km) from the heavily armed border with North Korea.

As the air force announced an investigation, South Korean media reported that the bombs had been dropped in error after a pilot inputted incorrect coordinates.

The incident occurred during preliminary live-fire exercises involving the air force and army in preparation for joint South Korea-US military exercises known as Freedom Shield that are scheduled to run from 10 to 20 March. The drills are intended to prepare the allies for any potential conflict with the North, which views them as a preparation for an invasion.

The live-fire exercises were suspended while military authorities tried to establish the cause of the incident.

Pocheon’s disaster response centre said six civilians, including two people from Thailand and Myanmar, had been injured and were being treated at hospitals. Several other civilians reportedly suffered feelings of anxiety.

Some of the victims sustained fractures to their necks and shoulders, according to News1. None of the injuries are thought to be life-threatening.

Local people have long complained about the noise and disruption, as well as the potential danger posed by military exercises.

One man, who gave only his surname, Park, told Yonhap news agency he had been at home watching television when the accident happened.

“I suddenly heard an enormous explosion, like a thunderclap, and the whole house shook. When I went outside, everything was in chaos,” Park said.

Cheon Man-ho, 68, who lives about 20 metres from where one of the bombs fell, said he initially thought war had broken out.

“The roof collapsed, windows shattered, and trees were all broken,” Cheon told the Chosun Ilbo newspaper. “When I went to see what was happening, everything was destroyed and black smoke was rising.”

Lee Poong-seop, 65, who has run a car business in the village for 30 years, described the moment of impact. “I was cleaning the car centre when suddenly there was a ‘boom’ sound and the building shook violently,” he told News1. “I’ve lived here my whole life but never heard such a loud sound.”

The military cordoned off the area to check for unexploded bombs, prompting an evacuation order, but later confirmed all eight bombs had detonated.

Photographs from the scene showed shattered windows and a church building strewn with debris. Local media reported that five homes, a warehouse, a greenhouse and a 1-tonne truck were also damaged.

The air force said it had established an accident response committee to investigate the incident and would “take all necessary measures, including compensation for damages”.

The national fire agency said the bombs were “presumed to have fallen on a village during a South Korea-US joint exercise”. This resulted “in many displaced residents”, it added.

People at a centre for senior citizens felt the impact, even though it is located about 1km from the scene.

“A sudden explosion shook the building. The windows shattered, and one of our teachers was injured and taken to the hospital,” the centre’s director, surnamed Yu, told Yonhap. “Fortunately, none of the seniors were hurt, but they were so frightened that we sent them all home.”

North and South Korea remain technically at war since their 1950-3 conflict ended in an armistice but not a peace treaty.

Republicans cannot reach their budget goal of slashing at least $1.5tn in spending over the next decade to fund Donald Trump’s tax cuts and immigration crackdown without cutting healthcare relied upon by tens of millions of Americans – including seniors and children, according to the non-partisan budget assessor.

House Republicans last week narrowly passed a budget instructing the energy and commerce committee, which is responsible for federal healthcare, to cut spending under its jurisdiction by $880bn – in order to pay for Trump’s tax cuts, mass deportations and defence investments.

House speaker Mike Johnson insists that the spending purge can be achieved by rooting out waste, fraud and tightening eligibility requirements, and that healthcare is safe in Republican hands.

But the numbers do not add up, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Wednesday.

The independent in-house agency confirmed that it would be impossible to reduce spending by $880bn without cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip). That’s because after excluding Medicare, Medicaid and Chip, the committee oversees only $381bn in spending – much less than the $880bn target – the CBO said.

Trump and his Republican party want to extend the soon to expire 2017 tax cut law – which would cost nearly $5tn – while also spending hundreds of billions of dollars on their so-called “America first” agenda. To do so without further increasing the national debt, Republicans are looking to slash spending on existing programs.

Trump has repeatedly said he will not cut social security, Medicare or Medicaid – the country’s principal safety net programs which together accounted for almost half the $6.75tn federal spending in the last fiscal year.

Medicaid covers around 70 million low-income people, or one in five Americans, while Medicare provides health coverage for 66 million seniors over the age of 65. Chip is designed to cover uninsured children in families who don’t qualify for Medicaid.

But the CBO assessment, which was requested by Democratic congressman Frank Pallone, the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, and Brendan Boyle, ranking member of the budget committee, makes clear that the unprecedented spending cuts will be impossible without dismantling the social safety net programs relied upon by large numbers of Americans in every district – Republican and Democrat – across the country.

“This letter from CBO confirms what we’ve been saying all along: the math doesn’t work without devastating Medicaid cuts,” said Pallone in a statement. “Republicans know their spin is a lie, and the truth is they have no problem taking health care away from millions of Americans so that the rich can get richer and pay less in taxes than they already do.”

Cuts to health and social security would be devastating for millions of Americans – and was categorically denied by Trump on the 2024 campaign trail.

The House is expected to vote on a motion on Thursday to censure Democrat Al Green for interrupting Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday night by shouting: “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid.”

A former soldier has been found guilty of raping his ex-girlfriend before murdering her with a crossbow in a “final act of spite”.

Kyle Clifford, 26, shot dead Louise Hunt, 25, and her sister Hannah Hunt, 28, with a crossbow and fatally stabbed their mother, Carol Hunt, 61, during a four-hour attack at their home in Bushey, Hertfordshire, on 9 July last year. The women were the wife and daughters of the BBC racing commentator John Hunt.

Clifford began plotting to attack Louise two days after she ended their 18-month relationship because he was angry at being rejected. He was also angry at the Hunt family because he “correctly assumed” they had advised Louise to break up with him, Cambridge crown court heard.

In her closing speech to jurors, the prosecutor, Alison Morgan KC, said: “Louise was not going to be allowed by him to control the narrative. If he wanted Louise, he would have her, he would control her, he would rape her, and he would murder her and members of her family …

“If he could not have Louise Hunt then no one else was going to and he was going to take down her family with her. The family, he knew, did not support his relationship with her. He was angered, and that anger involved the planning of sexual violence as a means of acting out of spite in a final act before Louise Hunt’s death.”

Clifford, from Enfield, north London, refused to attend the trial before the judge Mr Justice Bennathan and did not give evidence. He admitted the triple murder, false imprisonment of Louise and two counts of possession of offensive weapons, namely an MX-405 crossbow and a 25cm knife, at an earlier hearing at Cambridge crown court on 22 January. He denied raping his former partner on the day of her death.

His barrister, Phil Bradley KC, told jurors on Tuesday that the defence case was that Clifford and Louise last had sexual intercourse on 23 June.

But on Thursday a jury of seven women and five men found him guilty after 45 minutes of deliberations of raping Louise on 9 July. There was applause from the public gallery after the verdicts were returned.

The judge thanked the jurors and said he would sentence Clifford on Tuesday. He said: “Because of the murder convictions, the only sentence is life imprisonment.”

He told the jury the case was “dreadful” as he praised the Hunt family for their dignity and restraint.

The trial heard that Clifford began researching murder weapons while also viewing pornography within days of the break-up on 26 June.

It can now be revealed that less than 24 hours before the attack he was searching the internet for podcasts by the misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate.

He bought a 30-metre (100ft) length of rope, a crossbow, an air pistol, a 25cm butcher’s knife and two cans of petrol. Clifford was captured on CCTV buying two rolls of duct tape, which he used to restrain Louise, binding her wrists behind her back, and her ankles.

Morgan told jurors: “It will be difficult for you to imagine what was going on in the mind of someone like Kyle Clifford. What was clearly going on was the marrying up of thoughts of extreme violence with sexual desire and fulfilment. His planning shows he planned a murderous act but also an act involving sexual violence.”

Clifford murdered Carol within two minutes of blagging his way into the family home at 2.39pm. He then waited for more than an hour for Louise to finish working in the garden before restraining, gagging and raping her. He murdered her more than two hours later before shooting dead Hannah with the same crossbow when she returned home from work.

In legal argument, the prosecutor had said Clifford’s meticulously planned attack had involved the use of sex “as a weapon” against Louise. “The spite and slight that comes from him being mistreated, as he would see it, is what fuels the whole planning of these events and … sexualised violence is a part of that,” she said.

Police said the scale of Clifford’s crimes was “unprecedented” in terms of male violence against women and girls.

DCI Nick Gardner, from the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire major crime unit, said: “This was not a crime of passion, but a carefully planned assault.” He added that Clifford gave no comment during interviews with police and had shown no remorse.

Clifford became the subject of a search for a number of hours before he was found injured in Lavender Hill cemetery in Enfield on 10 July 2024 after shooting himself in the chest with the crossbow. He is now paralysed from the chest down.

The Danish postal service has said it will deliver its last letter at the end of this year, instead focusing on packages to respond to changing forms of communication.

PostNord said on Thursday it would cut 1,500 jobs in Denmark and remove 1,500 red postboxes, citing the “increasing digitalisation” of society.

The company, formed in 2009 in a merger of the Swedish and Danish postal services, is owned by the Danish and Swedish states in a respective 40:60 split. Letter distribution in Sweden would not be affected, it said.

The Danish postal service has been responsible for delivering letters in the country since 1624, but since 2000 the number of letters has declined by more than 90%, it said.

PostNord Denmark will deliver its last letter on 30 December.

“With increasing digitalisation, the number of letters in Denmark is rapidly decreasing, and therefore PostNord in Denmark will stop delivering letters in 2026 to focus on being the Danes’ preferred package supplier,” the company said in a statement.

Kim Pedersen, the chief executive of PostNord Denmark, said: “In order for us to create a sustainable business, we need to adapt, and unfortunately this means a difficult decision to say goodbye to some of our colleagues.”

He added: “We have been the Danes’ postal service for 400 years, and therefore it is a difficult decision to tie a knot on that part of our history.”

PostNord lost its obligation to deliver post to the whole of Denmark last year in a move towards market liberalisation, meaning the company also lost much of its financial support.

The government said it would still be possible to post letters despite the changes.

“We can still send and receive letters everywhere in the country,” the transport minister, Thomas Danielsen, told the Ritzau news agency.

The distributor DAO, which won the contract to deliver public service mail last year, has said it is ready to strengthen its letter distribution service.

Many postal services are struggling across Europe due to digitalisation. The German postal service, Deutsche Post, announced on Thursday that it would cut 8,000 jobs in Germany to reduce costs.

The core letters business of Britain’s Royal Mail has also been ravaged. The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, has proposed Royal Mail deliver second-class letters on alternate weekdays, potentially saving the company hundreds of millions of pounds.

Agence France-Presse contributed to this report.

For the second time in 25 years, a lone figure takes to the stage, an oversized maple leaf flag rippling on a screen behind him as he approaches the microphone.

His hair is perhaps a little greyer but the message remains the same: Canada will not cower to the United States.

“They mistake our modesty for meekness, our kindness for consent, our nation for another star on their flag and our love of a hot cheesy poutine with their love of a hot cheesy Putin,” says the man.

“This is the birthplace of peanut butter and ketchup chips and yoga pants. It is the land of universal healthcare and the bench-clearing brawl, of innovation and optimism and gettin’ ‘er done …

“Are we perfect? No. But we are not the 51st anything.”

Replete with orchestral swells and chest-thumping patriotism, is a remake of the famous 2000 advert for Molson Canadian beer.

It features an increasingly enthusiastic “Joe Canadian” working his way through a catalogue of national stereotypes, passing from diffidence to defiance before the original’s climactic cry: “Canada is the second largest landmass! The first nation of hockey! And the best part of North America! My name is Joe! And I am Canadian!”

When it first came out, the spot struck a nerve and entered the pantheon of Canadian popular culture.

And it has seen a revival since Donald Trump started threatening Canada’s sovereignty. The US president’s suggestion that the country might become the 51st US state has provoked a wave of patriotic fervour.

On Wednesday, fans got a long-anticipated update.

Jeff Douglas, the video’s star, said the new version was produced by an anonymous collective of Canadian creatives and advertising professionals.

“These are professionals who typically are competitors, coming together, offering what they have, for a common goal … No logos, no brands … the client for this one is Canada.”

The new video cycles through images of famous Canadians, including Terry Fox and Gordon Lightfoot, and the Canadian response to catastrophe.

“We are the first to unite in the crisis, the first to build bridges – not walls – and the first to stand on guard for thee,” Douglas says in the clip, a reference to Canada’s national anthem.

For Douglas, the years between the two videos have seen reflection on the nature of patriotism and the unifying threads of Canada’s shared – and often dark – past.

“Our history, as we were taught, was put together so we would feel good about ourselves and that we’re a force for good in the world. I still think we are a force for good in this world. But certainly, the past 25 years have revealed how we haven’t always done good things. We’ve done some really bad things,” he told the Guardian.

After Trump announced 25% taxes on Canadian goods earlier this week, Canada has responded with disbelief, outage and defiance.

With the new video, Douglas says the job was simple: “We humbly hope it may be something that can help boost Canadian spirits.”