Byline Times Audio Articles

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

As anti-migrant protests continue to spread in England, the demonstrations are helping to bridge the gap between supposedly mainstream conservatives and extremist groups.

And by and large those politicians are either failing to distance themselves from these groups, or actively embracing the association.

The old 'cordon sanitaire' previously separating centre-right conservatives from the race-obsessed extreme right appears to be evaporating before our eyes - and it is the anti-migrant hotel protests which are providing the space for it to happen.

We look through some of the clearest examples of his below, in addition to our exclusive report in January on Nigel Farage posing with racist activists.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

1. Reform Councillors with 'Neo-Nazi'

Five Reform councillors in Kent joined a 'stop the boats' protest in Maidstone at the weekend. They appeared in photographs with a man draped in a flag of the British Movement, described as 'one of the UK's longest-standing neo-Nazi organisations', as Kent Current reported.

The councillors were Oliver Bradshaw, Dean Burns, Amelia Randall, Garry Sturley and Pamela Williams. They posed with protesters including a heavily-tattooed man wrapped in a British Movement flag, who Byline Times can identify as former National Front activist, Mike Gott.

In some shots, Reform's councillors are smiling and giving double thumbs-up gestures alongside Gott - also known as Carl England - a man Hope Not Hate has dubbed a neo-Nazi.

As Kent Current reports, the British Movement - which his flag endorses - was founded in the late 1960s and is one of the most overtly neo-Nazi organisations in Britain. Its members have been convicted in recent years for offences including stockpiling weapons and preparing acts of terror. Gott has himself previously been sentenced to prison for possession of a knuckleduster (as is tattooed on his face), harassment, and assault by beating.

It is not clear whether the Reform councillors were aware of who Gott is.

Where Is the Political Leadership Against This Violent Far-Right Movement Terrorising Britain?

The silence of senior mainstream politicians and media organisations against the rise of a new well-organised far-right movement on Britain's streets is a disgrace, argues Adam Bienkov

Adam Bienkov

2. Robert Jenrick with Founder of Terror-Linked Fascist Group

Conservative shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick attended a demonstration organised by a neo-Nazi party and posted a picture of himself with the founder of a terror organisation.

Jenrick later posted pictures of himself with demonstrators, which included Eddy Butler, one of the original founders of neo-Nazi group Combat 18. The numerals in Combat 18 refer to the first and eighth letters of the alphabet, referencing the name of Adolf Hitler.

Monitoring group Stand Up to Racism reported: "Butler helped to establish Combat 18 as the security detail of the British National Party in the early 1990s.

"In January 2025, the Government designated Combat 18 as an alias of the Blood & Honour group, saying there are "reasonable grounds" to suspect it of "being involved in terrorist activities through promoting and encouraging terrorism, seeking to recruit people for that purpose and making funds available for the purposes of its terrorist activities"."

The protest was organised by Callum Barker of the far-right Homeland Party, who has posted images that reference the numerical code "1488". This code was invented by the US neo-Nazi terrorist David Lane, who was involved in the murder of a Jewish radio host in 1984.

3. Suella Braverman's Turning Point Ties

Last week, former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman MP spoke at a large protest in Waterlooville against a Home Office plan to house asylum seekers in the town centre. It has n...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Russia has sanctioned multiple Byline Times journalists and contributors, following our award-winning exposes of Putin's crimes in Ukraine.

The Russian foreign ministry on Wednesday announced that six contributors to Byline Times and Byline TV have been added to its "stop list", banning them from ever entering the country.

The ministry said the inclusion of Byline's journalists was in retaliation for what it says were our "efforts to demonise our country [and] actively fabricate anti-Russia narratives to diminish Moscow's international influence".

Those included on the list were Byline Podcast editor and presenter Adrian Goldberg, former Byline TV editor Caolan Robertson and longstanding Byline contributors John Sweeney, Paul Conroy and Zarina Zabrisky, who they accuse of "collaborating" with Byline.

Sweeney, Conroy and Zabrisky fronted Byline TV's award-winning investigative documentary film Under Deadly Skies, which exposed Russia's war crimes against the Ukrainian people on the Eastern front.

The film uncovered evidence of Russia's use of white phosphorous and the torture of Ukrainians in Kherson.

Zabrisky's Byline Times investigation into Russia's use of 'human safari' drone attacks on Ukrainian citizens also led to an investigation by the United Nations' Independent International Commission of Inquiry, which confirmed our reporting that the Russian military had committed crimes against humanity

Under Deadly Skies was followed by another award-winning documentary on Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine, The Battle for Kyiv, which was also produced by Byline TV, and fronted by investigative journalist Oz Katerji.

The targeting of our journalists also follows a series of Byline Times' investigations into Russian interference in British politics. These include John Sweeney's exposes of security service concerns about relations between former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Evgeny Lebedev, the son of former KGB spy Alexander Lebedev.

The sanctioned Byline journalists are among 21 British citizens added to Russia's "stop list" which also includes other British media figures like Guardian journalist Rafael Behr and Daily Telegraph reporter David Blair as well as a series of other experts and commentators.

In its statement the Russian foreign ministry says the list is in response to "London's continued confrontational course" against the country, "including its efforts to demonise our country, actively fabricate anti-Russia narratives to diminish Moscow's international influence, and its ongoing supply of weapons to the neo-Nazi Kiev regime".

"The actions of these British propagandists are irresponsible" they state.

Byline Times Executive Editor Peter Jukes said the inclusion of so many Byline journalists and contributors on the list was a sign of the impact of our reporting on Russia.

"Byline Times is delighted to be recognised by the Kremlin for its fearless reporting of Russian war crimes. Whatever these 'stop orders' are supposed to mean, they won't stop our reporting", he said.

Reform UK's anti-trade union mayor of Greater Lincolnshire was invited to speak at a Unite union event, despite the party's opposition to trade unions and workers rights.

Former Conservative minister, turned Reform politician, Andrea Jenkyns, who insisted recently that "I don't like trade unions" and has opposed measures to increase workers' rights, was invited to attend the union's rally against the potential closure of Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery, a major employer in North Lincolnshire that is set to shut down after failing to find a new buyer.

Prax, the firm which owns the refinery, filed for insolvency in June this year, leading the UK Government to provide emergency funding and appoint insolvency practitioners to keep the refinery open whilst new buyers are sought. Over 600 jobs are at risk, and it now appears that there has been no luck in finding a new buyer.

Reform UK has seized on the potential closure and blamed it on Net Zero policies - namely high energy bills.

As well as Reform's Andrea Jenkyns, Conservative MP Martin Vickers also addressed the Unite rally at the site in July.

That's despite the Conservatives and Reform UK opposing Labour's landmark Employment Rights Bill which will meet unions' long-standing calls to repeal a raft of anti-union laws, ban nearly all zero hours contracts and give workers protections on day one of employment.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

Jenkyns told Jeremy Vine's show over the weekend: "I'll be honest with you, I don't like trade unions." She attacked the Employment Rights Bill, branding the new rights "ridiculous" and opposed Unite-backed calls for a wealth tax.

"You don't want workers to have power?" the Mirror's Kevin Maguire asked.

"I want workers to have rights, but it's got ridiculous now," Jenkyns replied, as reported by Left Foot Forward.

Asked why Jenkyns and Vickers were invited to the July rally for Lindsey workers, a Unite spokesperson told Byline Times: "Unite's priority is always on defending the jobs, pay and conditions of its members. Local politicians from all political parties attended the rally on 24 July where the priority was saving jobs and keeping the oil refinery open.

'Unite has been crystal clear that the UK Government must use every resource available to protect jobs, skills, local communities, supply chains and the livelihoods of thousands of families that would be affected by a closure of Lindsey Oil refinery."

The union spokesperson added: "Unite has a longstanding campaign for a workers' transition in the oil and gas sector. Unite is not against net zero but we have been clear that it will not be achieved without serious investment in new jobs. If Lindsey is closed it will be the second refinery to go under this Labour government without a concrete plan for jobs."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

They added that Unite has "warned ministers time after time" about the need for investment in the sector.

A report from the publication The Socialist of the rally states: "Unite, the main trade union at the site, organised a midday protest rally outside Grimsby Town Hall on 24 July, attended by around 250 workers. Unfortunately, the union invited local Tory MP Martin Vickers and newly elected Reform mayor of Greater Lincolnshire Andrea Jenkins to speak. Both blamed the inaction of the Labour government and "Net Zero religion" for the closure, which gained a certain echo from the crowd…

"Reform UK politicians are presenting themselves as fighting to save jobs, at the same time as Reform-led councils are themselves carrying out brutal cuts on our ...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Hundreds of far-right activists are currently threatening to attack hotels full of vulnerable refugees, at events which have been attended and endorsed by opposition politicians.

These events, which have been partly organised by far-right and Neo-Nazi groups, have been repeatedly defended by prominent mainstream senior politicians, some of whom suggest that the inhabitants of the hotels pose a threat to their daughters.

Meanwhile an entirely innocent British black man and his family are living in fear of their lives after being falsely labelled a paedophile on a far-right website still used by Government ministers.

The above is not the storyline from a futuristic dystopian novel, but the current reality of life in Britain, where the rise of a new well-organised violent far-right is facing little serious opposition from mainstream politicians and media organisations.

EXCLUSIVE

Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate

EXCLUSIVE: One leading 'Safeguard Force' figure previously expressed hope Reform would "set the world on fire" if elected. Another shared anti-migrant memes featuring weapons

Olly Haynes

In Downing Street, which is currently occupied by former human rights lawyer Keir Starmer, questions about this movement have so far been met with only mild opposition at best and outright complicity at worst. Pushed to condemn the mobs seeking to intimidate and target those placed inside asylum hotels, a spokesman for the Prime Minister insisted that people were "right to protest" in order to express their "legitimate concerns" about migration. Meanwhile an order issued by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper instructed police officers to reveal the ethnicity and nationality of suspects, saying she wanted "more transparency" about those accused of serious crimes.

To see where this is all leading you only need to look at the case of the British musician Olajuwon Ayeni, who is currently living in fear for his life after being falsely labeled a paedophile.

A video of Ayeni playing with his white granddaughters, was shared with millions of people by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, alongside the caption "Wtf is even going on here? Where are the parents?!"

Amid the uproar, Ayeni was suspended by his artist management company and then forced to retire to his home after facing violent threats on the street near his home in Redcar.

"We haven't gone outside at home, we just can't," Ayeni's partner Natalie told the Guardian.

"We were walking home from shops just streets from our house, and two lads passed us, spun round and said 'I hope you're not them off that video or we're coming back to slash you up'. It's just horrendous.

Robert Jenrick and the Conservative Party's Embrace of 'Blood and Soil' Nationalism

The British right is adopting an increasingly extreme form of ethnic identity politics, while failing to explain what the rest of us are supposed to be so worried about, argues Jonathan Portes

Jonathan Portes

"Someone was shouting 'paedophile' outside the house the other night, so I rang the police again but they say there's little they can do. It feels a matter of time before something bad happens. We tried to go out yesterday and had to come home."

That this kind of thing is now happening is not a coincidence. Over the past year there has been a concerted attempt by far-right activists and politicians to encourage what Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has described as "civil disobedience on a vast scale" across the country.

Yet what Farage describes as "civil disobedience" is in reality an extreme movement designed to deliberately whip up violence against not just asylum seekers and migrants, but anyone who is not white or British.

So far we have yet to see the return of the sort of widespread street violence tha...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

A new Reform UK administration's decision to scrap its net zero targets, while continuing to take cash for green projects, is being challenged today by opposition councillors.

Last month, Byline Times reported that the now Reform UK-run council in West Northamptonshire is systematically removing all references to climate change and net zero from its strategies, website and documents - while simultaneously continuing to take Government cash for climate projects.

The decision to scrap its net zero policies has sparked local protests, and considerable opposition anger after the news was announced in an article in The Telegraph - before the actual decision had been voted on by councillors.

Council leader Mark Arnull claimed net zero plans were "something we cannot afford", saying: "There was no budget, there's been no scope or plans".

"It's not a case of denying climate change, it's a case of being realistic with the public," he added, as reported by the BBC at the time.

It came just hours after Reform-controlled Durham County Council became the first local authority in England to scrap its net zero targets.

Since national legislation requires the council to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, opposition councillors have warned that the move to abandon its plans for how to get there risks "creating a set of incoherent polices, and creating a scenario where West Northamptonshire suffers a lack of inward investment due to this political stance" and plan to challenge it at a scrutiny committee on Tuesday.

The call-in report adds: "These are targets. They have never been absolutes, so is it that the administration believes that these targets are wrong in themselves and therefore need revising, or fundamentally object to the concept of net zero itself?"

"The council sets targets all the time…[It] sets a sense of direction and focus whether or not they are achieved. The same applies on this pathway to net zero 2050."

The last Labour Government's landmark Climate Act 2008 creates a legal requirement for the council to include climate impact in all its decision making.

As the scrutiny panel points out: "It does not say 'environmental' - it specifically says climate. Removing this from council reports could be seen as weakening of this requirement and potentially putting the council in breach of the act."

The chances of the decision being overturned appear slim, though an opposition source believes they may have to reconsider banning the word 'climate' in council docs, not least due to the fact that the 2050 legal requirement to hit net zero remains in place, as do legal requirements to mitigate and adapt to climate change under the 2008 Act.

"We will be arguing that we need to measure progress as it's the council's duty," say the opposition councillors.

holding farage to account #reformUNCOVERED

While most the rest of the media seems to happy to give the handful of Reform MPs undue prominence, Byline Times is committed to tracking the activities of Nigel Farage's party when actually in power

UPDATE

The Reform and Conservative Politicians Mingling With Neo-Nazis and Fascists at Asylum Hotel Protests

21 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

'Dancing with the Devil': Unite Condemned For Invite to Reform's Anti-Trade Union Mayor Andrea Jenkyns

20 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Reform UK Accused of Breaking Climate Law as Opponents Challenge Local Net Zero Ban

19 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate

14 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Bankrupt Firm of Reform UK's Waste-Busting Local Government Chief Owes Taxpayer £36,000

12 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Nigel Farage Claimed There's 'No Money in Politics' Just Before Running for £91,000+ MP Job

11 August 2025

Contribute to our #ReformUncovered crowdfunder

Reform also have the majority ...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

"With the Conservatives, there are no blacks, no whites, just people." That was 1983. But it's hard to imagine Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, who recently complained Dagenham wasn't white enough, repeating those words. His radicalisation reflects a wider swing among some right-wing politicians, commentators and think-tankers away from objecting to immigration on (often flimsy or spurious, but not self-evidently irrational) economic grounds to straightforward "blood and soil" nationalism.

Rather than analysing the economic or social impacts of immigration, the new focus is on demographics, and in particular on the shrinking share of the White British population (with the emphasis on white), often described as the "indigenous" population or the "traditional majority". While this is hardly new - I tracked it from Enoch Powell to Roger Scruton to Douglas Murray some years back - it has recently become much more prominent, most virulently in the overtly racist rhetoric of Matt Goodwin and Douglas Carswell.

So extreme is this, however, it has embarrassed some of the more restrained and thoughtful anti-immigration thinkers, who disavow the racism, but share the broader perspective that the most important thing about immigration is not its economic effects but its impact on British culture and society - and that these are both very large and very negative. Like Goodwin, they argue that demographic change, as measured by the growth in the non-white population, is the key metric.

EXCLUSIVE

Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate

EXCLUSIVE: One leading 'Safeguard Force' figure previously expressed hope Reform would "set the world on fire" if elected. Another shared anti-migrant memes featuring weapons

Olly Haynes

The challenge for them is of course how they reconcile the apparent contradiction - if the problem is too many people who aren't white, in what sense does this differ from old-fashioned Powellite racism? Two good recent examples of their attempt to square this circle come from David Goodhart and Ed West, both often regarded as relatively sensible voices on that side of the debate.

Goodhart predicts that within a decade only one in five Londoners will be "natives" (a category he reserves for white British) and states "demographic change on this scale has not happened before…and the precautionary principle suggests it should be handled with care." West endorses this perspective: "the key issue is David's point that it is not the 1990s: there has been drastic and dramatic demographic change since then, way beyond what any group of people would find tolerable."

This framing is meant to sound reasonable and pragmatic: not racism or xenophobia, just realistic, recognising that it is human nature to be uncomfortable with rapid ethnic change. Nor is it particularly new or unusual - indeed it has often been made by politicians of all parties seeking to justify restrictions on immigration without sounding racist. But once you begin to unpack the logic, it becomes clear that the argument is neither neutral nor rational - it prioritises ethnic identity over all the other profound transformations that British society has undergone.

Take Islington, where I live. Since I moved here more than half a century ago, it has indeed undergone profound changes. The population dropped by a quarter - before recovering and growing by a third. It suffered a deep economic downturn, losing almost the entire manufacturing sector before riding the services boom of the 1990s and 2000s. It's now far richer, but also more unequal, trends reflected above all in the housing market. The population is older, less religious, and much better educated.

Some of these shifts parallel national trends, others reflect local factors. Some...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

On August 15, 2025, in the city of Anchorage, Alaska, on the territory of a U.S. Army military base, a Russia-U.S. summit took place, which many journalists have already dubbed the "Alaska Summit." The key topic of the meeting was the resolution of the military conflict in Ukraine. However, a significant number of analysts initially did not expect any political breakthrough regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war.

And this is quite understandable: although the war was officially at the center of attention, for most observers it was clear that the event was rather symbolic in nature, typical of modern political technology. What mattered more was the very fact of the meeting, its setting, the chance to outmaneuver one another in subtle diplomatic details, to provide the press with polished photographs, to utter the "right" words, to pull Putin closer during a handshake, and many other gestures - while at the same time offering no real mechanisms for a ceasefire or for achieving a just peace settlement.

This performative symbolism was visible from the very beginning. The summit was not thoroughly prepared; it was organised hastily, without serious preliminary consultations, which in itself looked like yet another political trick by the Trump administration.

Earlier, Trump had threatened Moscow with harsh sanctions if, within ten days, there were not at least some formal prospects for a peace agreement in the war in Ukraine. In essence, this was an ultimatum issued by Washington to somehow demonstrate determination and showcase the activity of American diplomacy. But in reality, it only cornered the White House, because behind such loud statements, there were no real levers of influence.

For Putin, this meeting was not a platform for negotiations, but above all an instrument of political legitimisation. On the one hand, it was an opportunity to show the world that he is still being received, that he is capable of holding dialogue on equal terms with the President of the United States, despite the warrant of the International Criminal Court and his de facto political isolation.

On the other hand, it was a signal to his close circle and his domestic audience: "I am still capable of something, I am still being taken seriously, and I remain a figure of international stature." For Putin, this is no less important than the war itself, because in the Russian system of power, personal demonstrations of strength and "handshake-worthiness" are often valued more highly than any real diplomatic results.

Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles

There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within the country, reports Denis Mikhailov

Denis Mikhailov

The Aspirations of the United States

From the very start of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump tirelessly repeated that he could end the war in Ukraine "in just one day" once he became president. He insisted that he possessed special mechanisms of influence over the parties to the conflict, that he knew the "secret levers," and that he would act in ways no previous American leader had been able to.

These bold claims sounded impressive during the election race, but from the moment of his election and inauguration, reality proved entirely different. Neither in the first 100 days nor afterwards did the situation shift even an inch. On the contrary, at times, tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached unprecedented levels.

At one point, Trump's inner circle even discussed the possibility of reducing - and eventually completely cutting - military aid to Ukraine. For Kyiv, this looked like a stab in the back, while for Moscow, it was a long-awaited signal of Western weakness and fatigue. And then, shortly before the summit itself, Trump once a...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025, ended without progress on a ceasefire or a long-term peace in Ukraine. Trump failed to impose new economic sanctions after the summit. But while there was no breakthrough at the meeting, the possibility of a deal that could reshape global energy and extend the war lurked in the background largely unnoticed.

The Kremlin often diverts attention through its use of a tactic called 'distraction or deflection'. In this case the red carpet, military flyovers, and conspiracy theories about Putin's doubles drew the spotlight away, while leaving the real story overlooked.

Sanctions Envoys in Alaska

Clues to the real purpose of the summit could be found in the fact that both sides brought with them finance-heavy delegations. Trump was joined by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who brought a copy of the mineral deal to President Zelenskyy in February 2025, pushing for it to be signed without security guarantees, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Putin included Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who oversees Russia's response to sanctions, and Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF).

The RDIF was designed to attract Western capital into Russian projects and has often served as a back channel for high-level financial diplomacy. Dmitriev has long served as a financial envoy for the Kremlin. In January 2017, Dmitriev met with Erik Prince, Blackwater PMC founder and Trump donor to work on liaison between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin and spoke with Anthony Scaramucci, senior aide to then President-elect Donald Trump, at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

By bringing Dmitriev to Anchorage despite sanctions, Moscow signalled that it expects sanctions relief to be part of the deal. The RDIF has been under US sanctions since 2022. If the RDIF regains access to global markets, Russia could finance infrastructure, technology, and energy expansion with Western capital again.

EXCLUSIVE

The Turning Point Takeover: The Growing Network Bringing Trump's Politics to the UK

The Women's Safety Initiative is getting more attention, but its ideological underpinnings deserve serious scrutiny, reports Katherine Denkinson

Katherine Denkinson

ExxonMobil Back in Play

Putin issued a decree on August 15, the same day as the summit, allowing the US oil giant ExxonMobil to reenter a major Russian state-owned oil project on Russia's Pacific coast.

Sakhalin-1 is run by a Russian state-owned Rosneft entities affiliates, the state-owned giant headed by Igor Sechin, a close Putin ally. ExxonMobil held a 30% stake but pulled out in 2022 when sanctions tightened after the Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine. ExxonMobil, and other foreign investors can return on one condition: help lift sanctions on Russian oil.

The decree requires foreign shareholders to work towards lifting Western sanctions in order to reclaim their stakes, according to Reuters. They must also arrange contracts for foreign-made equipment and transfer funds into Sakhalin-1 project accounts.

Rosneft, Trump, and the Steele Dossier

The Sakhalin-1 has a background story connecting Rosneft and US politics. In 2011, ExxonMobil's then-CEO Rex Tillerson signed a $500 billion partnership with Rosneft, covering projects from Sakhalin to the Arctic. Putin presided over the deal personally. The same year, Rosneft and Exxon proposed building a $15 billion plant in Russia's Far East by 2018 and signed the first deal as part of a "Strategic Cooperation Agreement" on the exploration and exploitation of energy sources in the Arctic and Black Sea, US, and Canada, including major discoveries like a billion-barrel find in the Kara Sea. Exxon quit the ventures in 2018 following Western sanctions over Crimea, leaving Rosneft with massi...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Gaza Strip faces a severe food emergency that affects hundreds of thousands of people. According to the IPC, the international method for measuring the seriousness of food crises, two out of the three conditions that identify a famine have already been passed in some parts of Gaza.

More than 20% of families cannot get enough to eat and acute malnutrition now affects more than 30% of the population. The only measure still awaiting full confirmation, and expected soon, is the death rate.

Recent United Nations reports state that over half a million people - almost one in four - are surviving in famine conditions and often spend entire days without food. Day after day, the continued fighting, the blockade keeping aid out and the collapse of basic services, make survival even harder.

Children are especially exposed to these consequences: more than 320,000 under five years old are at risk of acute malnutrition and may suffer lasting harm. Most health centres still open are at breaking point and struggle to provide both care and nourishment.

EXCLUSIVE

UK Gaza Families Urge Starmer to Hold Israel Accountable for Press Killings

A group representing 350 Palestinian families living in Britain have called on the PM to condemn Israel's 'systematic assault on the press' and back an inquiry

Matt Gallagher

Given the seriousness of the situation, hearing directly from someone living and working on the front lines is invaluable for truly understanding what this humanitarian crisis means.

Ghada Al-Haddad, head of media and communications for Oxfam in Gaza, spoke to Byline Times about the harsh reality of hunger and famine and what it means for the people of Gaza, offering a human, and well-documented, perspective on what so often stays hidden behind numbers and official reports.

Andrea Umbrello (AU): Can you help us understand what hunger and malnutrition look like today in the Gaza Strip?

Ghada Al-Haddad (GAH) "Today, everyone in Gaza is hungry. Leading experts on food and nutrition to warn that we are now facing the worst that can happen - famine itself.

"In recent days, the number of people dying because of hunger has risen at a worrying pace. We know that unless people receive constant supplies of food, safe water, medical care, and other essential goods, these numbers will grow even faster in the days ahead.

We see our families, friends, and neighbours struggle to find their next meal, often coming up empty-handed. There are people collapsing in the streets, children so weak and hungry they cannot even cry

Ghada Al-Haddad, head of media and communications for Oxfam in Gaza

"We are almost powerless to stop any of this while the siege and the Israeli bombardment go on, making any food in the markets incredibly expensive and stopping humanitarian aid at the borders. We are truly on the edge of a point from which there may be no way back.

"Children, the elderly, people with chronic illnesses, pregnant women, and nursing mothers are among those most at risk from malnutrition, but by now the whole population is in danger. Without a rapid and lasting flow of aid, which only an immediate and permanent ceasefire can make possible, we will see the number of victims grow even more, bringing devastating long-term consequences."

Al-Haddad is highly critical of the current state of humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza, where the system has been drastically reduced to a few military-controlled sites overseen by the Israeli army.

EXCLUSIVE

'No Place is Safe': Mother Describes Life Under Siege in Gaza Strip

Nurse Alaa Jaber lost her father to Israeli bombing, and is currently living in a tent with her malnourished and injured family

Josiah Mortimer

These locations, run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, have caused serious problems, with hundreds of civilians killed or injured while trying ...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The planned meeting between Donald Trump, United States President, and the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, in Anchorage, Alaska, marks a significant geopolitical development. While the outcome remains unclear, two overarching points define the context of the talks.

First, in light of Trump's remarks on the swapping of territories, the war in Ukraine is not a territorial dispute, as pointed out by Olga Tokariuk, a Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), during a CEPA press briefing.

Russia's objective is not limited to capturing land but to subjugating a sovereign, democratic, pro-Western state. Public statements by Trump suggesting that territorial concessions could end the war are likely to be interpreted in Moscow as impunity, encouraging further aggression.

Second, Russia has a long record of disregarding treaties and commitments. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the US, UK, France, and Russia, has been rendered meaningless by Russia's actions since 2014.

The metaphor of "playing chess with a bear" captures the dynamic: rules are irrelevant when parties are about to devour the chessboard.

Geopolitical and Diplomatic Implications

From Ukraine's perspective, the principle of "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" is non-negotiable, said Tokariuk. Both the government and the public share the position.

The exclusion of Ukraine's president from the talks has drawn historical comparisons to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, when major powers divided Eastern Europe without the participation of the affected states. In addition, any bilateral agreement between Washington and Moscow that excludes Kyiv would have no validity for Ukraine and is widely viewed as a sign of weakening US support.

The Trump Putin Alaska Summit and Europe's Munich Moment

"The uncomfortable truth is this: if Ukraine falls, Europe won't be debating whether to confront Russia, but when"

Andrew Chakhoyan

For Russia, the summit offers multiple advantages. It grants Putin international visibility, undermines the authority of the International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued against him for the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and disrupts the diplomatic isolation imposed by Western states since the full-scale invasion began in 2022.

On a global level, the summit's optics could reshape alliances, potentially moving the US closer to Russia. The meeting sidelines Europe at a moment when transatlantic unity is critical.

The location carries symbolic weight. Alaska was part of the Russian Empire until its sale to the United States in 1867. Russian media have long framed Alaska as historically theirs, a territory to be returned.

Military Dimensions

Ukraine's military position is clear: it rejects territorial concessions and will not agree to end the war "at any cost", according to Tokariuk. Russia has insisted on full Ukrainian withdrawal from four partially occupied regions. For Kyiv, this is a red line.

While Ukraine supports a ceasefire along the current line of contact, it raises the issue of security guarantees. Any pause in fighting without enforceable mechanisms risks allowing Russia to regroup and launch renewed offensives.

The question of who would act as a guarantor - and how such a guarantee would be implemented - remains unanswered.

Economic Factors

One of Putin's possible motivations for the Anchorage summit is economic. US secondary sanctions, particularly those targeting oil and gas revenues, have increased pressure on Russia's war-driven economy. Avoiding such sanctions is a priority for the Kremlin.

However, Russia's economy is now heavily militarised. Should the war end, it would face structural challenges in converting back to civilian production. This realit...