Category: 2. World

The 8th Central Asian Expert Forum (CAEF) took place on 14–15 August 2025 in Tashkent. This year’s theme “Central Asia – a Common Space of Trust, Security and Sustainable Development” brought together over 100 experts, policy-makers, and diplomats to discuss regional dialogue and cooperation across Central Asia and beyond.

The Forum included also expert-led discussion sessions on regional economic integration, sustainable development, and the regional identities. Independent international experts from academia and think tanks provided examples of regional co-operation from other OSCE Participating states.

“The Forum is also a reminder that security and trust are built through dialogue. This is a principle that has guided the OSCE since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act exactly 50 years ago. Trust is not established overnight; it grows from consistent, transparent, and inclusive engagement. This is why gatherings like this – where representatives of all Central Asian states, as well as international partners, can meet face-to-face – are so essential.”, OSCE Project Co-Ordinator in Uzbekistan Ambassador Antti Karttunen said in his opening remarks.

The Forum was hosted by the Institute for Strategic and Regional Studies under the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan.  OSCE Project Co-Odinator in Uzbekistan together with other international organisations supported organisation of the forum.

President Donald Trump claimed Monday that he knew why Russian troops weren’t able to enter Kyiv in the days after they invaded Ukraine in 2022. Russia’s tanks, Trump said, got destroyed by missiles “because the tanks got stuck in the mud.”

“You know, they would’ve been in Kyiv in four hours going down the highway. But a Russian general made a brilliant decision to go through the farmland instead,” he said, sarcastically criticizing the supposed general.

This is fake history, as military analysts and various Ukrainians have pointed out since the president began making similar claims months ago. In reality, Russia tried and failed to make it to Kyiv using roads and highways. Its tanks were thwarted by fierce Ukrainian resistance and logistical problems in addition to muddy conditions.

“Russian forces used roads and highways as much as possible during the initial invasion, and took heavy losses on many of them. Russian tanks did get stuck in the mud during the initial invasion, but this was often after they struggled to advance along roads,” said Rob Lee, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program who has closely followed military tactics during the war. “One of the factors that hindered Russia’s invasion is that there were not many good highways and roads leading from Belarus to Kyiv, which canalized their forces.”

When CNN asked the White House for comment, an official responding on condition of anonymity noted Thursday that Russian tanks did get stuck in mud during and even before the invasion. The official provided links to some articles that mentioned this happening.

But even one of those articles clearly contradicted Trump’s claim that Russia didn’t make it to Kyiv because it chose not to use highways. The article said, “The Russians invaded using Ukraine’s major highways expecting a blitzkrieg-like attack that would leverage speed and overwhelming firepower to capture the capital city of Kyiv.”

Lee, emphasizing that sentence, added Friday: “Russian tanks did get stuck in the mud and there may have been cases when Russian commanders chose to drive through fields, but the Russian invasion plan emphasized driving along highways to reach the key cities, including Kyiv, as fast as possible. They generally drove through fields after trying to use roads and highways.”

Trump’s phony narrative about the Russian invasion is only the latest in a long line of false claims from the president about the war. Among other things, Trump has this year:

As Trump prepares to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, here’s a quick fact check of these Trump claims.

Trump has made the claim over and over again. The US, he keeps asserting, has given Ukraine triple or more the amount of wartime aid that Europe has – $350 billion from the US compared to just $100 billion from Europe.

“Biden gave them $350 billion. Europe gave $100 billion. It should be much more than that,” Trump said Monday, adding, “They should have had equalization, but they didn’t.” He repeated these figures Thursday: “We spent $350 billion …They spent $100 billion.”

Trump’s claim is not only wrong but a reversal of reality. In fact, as numerous fact checks have pointed out, Europe has done more than equalize – it has given more wartime aid to Ukraine than the US has.

According to figures from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank that tracks the aid data, Europe – the European Union plus individual European countries – collectively allocated about $195 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine from late January 2022 through June 2025; the US allocated about $134 billion for Ukraine over the same period (all figures are at Thursday exchange rates). The gap was even bigger in aid committed to Ukraine as opposed to aid actually allocated: about $300 billion committed by Europe compared to about $139 billion committed by the US.

It’s possible to arrive at different numbers using different methods of counting aid, but no reasonable method has corroborated Trump’s “$350 billion” US figure. The US government inspector general overseeing the Ukraine response says on its website that the US had appropriated about $185 billion for the Ukraine response through March 2025, including about $90 billion actually disbursed. That included funding spent in the US for weapons and defense services or sent to countries other than Ukraine.

When CNN asked the White House for comment on the president’s $350 billion claim, the official, responding on condition of anonymity, cited the inspector general’s figure – in the vicinity of $185 billion. The official also noted that the inspector general’s website has pointed out the US provided about $20 billion in loans as part of a G7 initiative.

That’s all fair, but it doesn’t get close to Trump’s $350 billion figure. So how did the White House official try to get closer?

With some nonsensical math – that added in a whole bunch of things that are not assistance to Ukraine.

Specifically, the official counted more than $90 billion in inflation felt by US households after the Russian invasion of Ukraine; a $16 billion decline in US exports to Russia amid US sanctions; and more than $7 billion in increased fertilizer costs after the Russian invasion drove up prices.

It’s obvious that none of this actually supports Trump’s claim that the US has provided Ukraine with $350 billion in aid. It’s particularly absurd to count the inflation experienced by Americans as US assistance to Ukraine.

When Trump was reminded in a Time interview in April that he had pledged to end the war on “day one,” he responded, “I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration,” and that “obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest.” In June, he claimed his promise to end the war within 24 hours of returning to office “was sarcastic.”

It’s often hard to determine Trump’s intent behind a given statement. In this case, it isn’t. An extensive body of evidence makes clear Trump’s promise wasn’t sarcastic, jesting or figurative. It was a solemn, direct, specific pledge.

CNN found 53 instances of Trump declaring on the campaign trail, in an entirely serious tone, manner and context, that he would end the war either within 24 hours of his return to the White House or even sooner than that, as president-elect.

Here’s a typical quote, from his 2024 debate against then-President Joe Biden: “I will have that war settled between Putin and Zelensky as president-elect before I take office on January 20. I’ll have that war settled. People being killed so needlessly, so stupidly. And I will get it settled, and I’ll get it settled fast before I take office.”

You can read the 52 additional examples here.

Trump claimed in February that Ukraine started the war, saying, “You should’ve never started it. You could’ve made a deal.” In reality, Russia started the war by launching its full-scale invasion in 2022 (after annexing the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in 2014). Trump’s February assertion that Ukraine started the war was publicly corrected by his former vice president Mike Pence, plus several Republican lawmakers.

Trump used different rhetoric later in the year, saying in April, “Biden could’ve stopped it, Zelensky could’ve stopped it, and Putin should’ve never started it.” The White House official correctly noted Thursday that “the President has expressed his frustration with Putin numerous times.”

In February, during a period in which Trump was aggressively criticizing Zelensky, he claimed Zelensky was “down at 4% approval rating.”

That wasn’t close to accurate.

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of Zelensky in a poll conducted in Ukraine from late November to early January, by a group of academics in partnership with a prominent Ukrainian pollster. And 57% of respondents said they trusted Zelensky in a February poll conducted by that pollster, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

Recent polling suggests Zelensky remains at a similar level of public support. A Gallup poll conducted in early July found 67% of respondents said they approved of Zelensky, and a Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll conducted in late July and early August found 58% of respondents said they trusted Zelensky – down from his 2025 peak of 74% in May but in the vicinity of his figures earlier in the year and most of last year.

Trump claimed Monday: “I’ve seen a poll coming out of Ukraine: 88% of the people would like to see a deal made. And if you go back three years, everybody was gung-ho for war.”

Trump was right that Ukrainian support for a negotiated quick end to the war has soared since 2022. However, it’s not “88%” in any public poll CNN could find. The Gallup poll in early July found 69% of respondents supported Ukraine seeking to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible – a new high in Gallup polling, and way up from 22% in 2022, but still far from Trump’s figure.

When CNN asked the White House what “88%” poll Trump was referring to, the official said that the president’s claim is corroborated by the Gallup poll – whose figure, again, is 69%. The official said, “The President is right. The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want to see a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, as evidenced in this Gallup poll.”

If Trump had said “overwhelming majority,” his claim would have been accurate. But he said “88%,” which was inaccurate.

For context, it’s also worth noting that the Gallup poll did not ask Ukrainians what kind of deal to end the war they would support; Olga Onuch, a University of Manchester professor who conducts polling in Ukraine, noted that Gallup’s finding wasn’t that 69% of respondents are “willing to accept territorial concessions.” The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll in late July and early August found widely varying levels of support for different potential proposals, with strong opposition to ideas previously floated by Russia.

Zelensky and aid money

During his February barrage of criticism against Zelensky, Trump falsely claimed on social media that Zelensky “admits that half of the money we sent him is ‘MISSING.’”

Zelensky never said that. Rather, in comments mischaracterized by some viral social media posts, Zelensky took issue with inflated claims about how much US cash Ukraine had received.

Zelensky told the Associated Press in February that although people talked about Ukraine getting as much as $200 billion in US aid, Ukraine had actually received about $76 billion, largely in the form of weapons. Zelensky said he didn’t know where all the supposed additional money had gone and that perhaps these higher figures were correct “on paper,” according to a translation by the news outlet Ukrainska Pravda.

That was not a confession that half of US cash had vanished. In reality, Zelensky was saying what experts in the US and elsewhere had repeatedly pointed out – that a large chunk of US support for Ukraine is not in the form of money handed to the Ukrainian government.

The White House official claimed Thursday that “Zelensky did say” what Trump claimed he said. But Zelensky simply didn’t. As supposed evidence, the official linked to a Washington Post article that noted Trump’s claim did not describe “exactly what Zelensky said.”

The Post article explained how Zelensky’s comments were in line with the fact that tens of billions of the US funds counted as Ukraine assistance were “not earmarked for Ukraine” but instead were spent on “sending equipment through drawdowns from U.S. stockpiles, enhancing U.S. military capabilities, humanitarian aid funneled through organizations in Europe, including for refugees, global food security, sanctions enforcement, economic aid through the World Bank and more.”

Talks aimed at striking a landmark global treaty on plastic pollution fell apart Friday as countries failed to find consensus on how the world should tackle the ever-growing scourge.

Negotiators from 185 nations worked beyond Thursday’s deadline and through the night in an ultimately futile search for common ground.

A large bloc wants bold action such as curbing plastic production, while a smaller clutch of oil-producing states want to focus more narrowly on waste management.

The stalemate was a resounding failure for the environment and for international diplomacy at a time when its frailties are in the spotlight.

Delegates speak after talks on a global treaty on combating plastic pollution were extended an extra day in Geneva Photo: Fabrice COFFRINI/AFP

Countries voiced anger and despair as the talks unravelled, but said they wanted future negotiations — despite six rounds of talks over three years now having failed to find agreement.

“We have missed a historic opportunity but we have to keep going and act urgently,” said Cuba.

Colombia added: “The negotiations were consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don’t want an agreement.”

Tuvalu, speaking for 14 Pacific small island developing states, said: “For our islands this means that without global cooperation and state action, millions of tonnes of plastic waste will continue to be dumped in our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food security, livelihood and culture.”

Read More: Clock ticks down on plastic pollution treaty

The High Ambition Coalition, which includes the European Union, Britain and Canada, and many African and Latin American countries, wanted to see language on reducing plastic production and the phasing out of toxic chemicals used in plastics.

The cluster of mostly oil-producing states calling themselves the Like-Minded Group — including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, Iran, and Malaysia — want a much narrower remit.

These countries railed against the negotiations being based on the entire life-cycle of plastic: from the petroleum-derived substance right through to waste.

“Our views were not reflected… without an agreed scope, this process cannot remain on the right track,” said Kuwait.

Bahrain said it wanted a treaty that “does not penalise developing countries for exploiting their own resources”.

France’s Ecological Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher said: “I am disappointed, and I am angry,” blaming a handful of countries, “guided by short-term financial interests”, for blocking an ambitious treaty.

“Oil-producing countries and their allies have chosen to look the other way,” she said.

The talks in Geneva — called after the collapse of the fifth and supposedly final round of talks in South Korea late last year — opened on August 5.

 

With countries far apart, Vayas produced two different draft texts on Wednesday and early Friday. The first was immediately shredded by countries, but while the second gained some traction, by sunrise, the game was up.

Talks chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said the session had merely been adjourned rather than ended.

He told AFP that countries and the secretariat “will be working to try to find a date and also a place” for resuming the talks.

The negotiations were hosted by the UN Environment Programme.

UNEP chief Inger Andersen told AFP that the Geneva talks had fleshed out the deeper details of where countries’ red lines were.

“They’ve exchanged on these red lines amongst one another — that’s a very important step,” she said.

However, environmental NGOs warned that without radically changing the process to better reflect the majority view, future talks would hit the same dead end — while plastic garbage would continue choking the environment.

The Center for International Environmental Law’s David Azoulay said the talks had been an “abject failure” because some countries were out to “block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty”.

“We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,” said Greenpeace’s delegation head Graham Forbes, blaming “fossil fuel interests” and “a handful of bad actors” for exploiting the consensus-based process to skewer meaningful action.

The World Wide Fund for Nature said the talks exposed how consensus decision-making “had now “outplayed its role in international environmental negotiations”.

More than 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced globally each year, half of which is for single-use items.

While 15 percent of plastic waste is collected for recycling, only nine percent is actually recycled.

Nearly half, or 46 percent, ends up in landfills, while 17 percent is incinerated and 22 percent is mismanaged and becomes litter.

The plastic pollution problem is so ubiquitous that microplastics have been found on the highest mountain peaks, in the deepest ocean trench and scattered throughout almost every part of the human body.

On current trends, annual production of fossil-fuel-based plastics will nearly triple by 2060 to 1.2 billion tonnes, while waste will exceed one billion tonnes, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Israel’s announcement that it will illegally build thousands of homes in a highly controversial development in the occupied West Bank – in a move Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich boasted “buries the idea of a Palestinian state” – has drawn widespread international condemnation.

Smotrich announced Thursday that he was pushing ahead with long-frozen plans for the  E1 area settlement project that would connect occupied East Jerusalem with the existing illegal Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, located several kilometres to the east.

The planned settlement, which was shelved for years amid opposition from the United States and European allies, would comprise more than 3,400 homes for Israeli settlers on Palestinian-owned land that experts say is vital for any future territorially contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Smotrich said the development was being revived as a response to plans by other countries to recognise a Palestinian state.

But the response from the rest of the world has been scathing, with governments describing the move as a blatant violation of international law that would fuel regional instability and leave the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in tatters. Here’s an overview of the reactions so far.

Palestine

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesperson for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said the E1 development, in combination with the war in Gaza and escalating settler violence, would only lead to further escalation, tension and instability.

He said he held the US responsible for halting Israel’s expansionist actions, and noted that the settlement announcement came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had spoken of his vision for a “Greater Israel”.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement, called for international intervention to halt the settlement plans.

It considered the E1 settlement “a continuation of the occupation’s plans to undermine the opportunity to establish the Palestinian state on its homeland, weaken its geographical and demographic unity, entrench the division of the West Bank into isolated areas surrounded by a sea of settlements, and facilitate the completion of their annexation”.

Qatar

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs slammed the move, saying it “reaffirms Qatar’s unequivocal rejection of the Israeli occupation’s policies aimed at expanding settlements and forcibly displacing Palestinian people, measures intended to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

Statement | Qatar Condemns Israeli Finance Minister’s Approval of Settlement Plans Separating East Jerusalem from the Occupied West Bank#MOFAQatar pic.twitter.com/5BRIC3didA

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Qatar (@MofaQatar_EN) August 14, 2025

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the settlement plans “in the strongest possible terms”, saying they were a violation of international law and a serious threat to the possibility of a two-state solution.

In a statement, it called on the international community to “assume its legal and moral responsibilities, protect the Palestinian people, and fulfil their legitimate rights, including recognition of the Palestinian state”.

Jordan

Jordan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the move in the “strongest terms”. The ministry’s spokesman Sufyan Qudah affirmed his country’s “absolute rejection and condemnation of this settlement plan and the illegal Israeli measures that constitute a blatant violation of international law and international Security Council resolutions”.

Qudah warned against the continued expansionist policy of the Israeli government in the occupied West Bank, which the ministry said “encourages the perpetuation of cycles of violence and conflict in the region”.

Turkiye

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said the settlement plan “disregards international law and United Nations resolutions” and “targets the territorial integrity of the State of Palestine, the basis for a two-state solution, and hopes for lasting peace”.

It reaffirmed Turkiye’s support for an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

United Kingdom

British Foreign Minister David Lammy said the plan must be stopped.

“The UK strongly opposes the Israeli government’s E1 settlement plans, which would divide a future Palestinian state in two and mark a flagrant breach of international law,” he said in an emailed statement to the Reuters news agency.

The situation in Gaza is appalling and the Israeli government’s actions are further jeopardising the two-state solution.
@AnitaAnandMP, @jnbarrot and I discussed the need for an immediate ceasefire, release of all hostages, a flood of aid and a plan to deliver lasting peace.

— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) August 14, 2025

Germany

The German government, a strong supporter of Israel, urged Israel to “stop settlement construction” and said it “strongly rejects” the plan for the new development

“The settlement construction violates international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions,” a spokesperson for the Foreign Office in Berlin said.

“It complicates a negotiated two-state solution and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, as demanded by the International Court of Justice,” he added.

Spain

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares called the expansion plan “a new violation of international law”.

“It undermines the viability of the two-state solution, the only path to peace,” he said in a social media post.

United Nations

The United Nations urged Israel to reverse its decision. “It would put an end to prospects of a two-state solution,” Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, told reporters.

“Settlements go against international law … [and] further entrench the occupation.”

European Union

The European Union’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also slammed the plan as a “breach of international law” that would further undermine a two-state solution.

“If implemented, settlement construction in this area will permanently cut the geographical and territorial contiguity between occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank and sever the connection between the northern and southern West Bank,” said Kallas.

“The EU urges Israel to desist from taking this decision forward, noting its far-reaching implications and the need to consider action to protect the viability of the two-state solution.”

She called on Israel to halt its settlement construction altogether, saying its settlement policy, combined with ongoing settler violence and military operations, were “fuelling an already tense situation on the ground and further eroding any possibility for peace”.

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also denounced the plans, saying the Israeli occupation and settlement expansion were illegal under international law, United Nations resolutions, and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and must end immediately.

The intergovernmental organisation urged the international community to take responsibility, hold Israel accountable, and impose sanctions in line with international law and relevant UN resolutions.

Israeli human rights group

Israeli advocacy group Peace Now warned that the move was “guaranteeing many more years of bloodshed”.

“The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution,” it said in a statement.

“There is a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the terrible war in Gaza – the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel – and it will ultimately come.”

United States

Israel’s key ally, the United States, had no immediate words of criticism for the proposal. Asked about the settlement development, a spokesperson for the US State Department said Washington was focused on ending the war in Gaza and ensuring Hamas will never govern that territory again.

“A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region,” the spokesperson said, referring to the Israeli government for further information.

The little-known history of comfort women in Indonesiapublished at 13:56 British Summer Time

13:56 BST

Ayomi Amindoni
BBC Indonesia

Warning: this post contains distressing details

Under Japanese occupation, hundreds of thousands in Asia – from South Korea to China to the Philippines – were taken as “comfort women”, forced into sexual slavery for Japanese soldiers during World War Two.

In Indonesia, the stories of these women – also known as “ianfu” – were largely buried until the 1990s, when Tuminah, from the city of Solo, became the first survivor to speak out about the sexual violence she had endured.

She had been working as a sex worker in 1944 when she was rounded up by Japanese military police and held in a brothel along with other women.

“In that hotel, I was there for days, I was very tired, both mentally and physically,” Tuminah’s niece, Hening Saptaningsih, recalled her saying. “If I could choose, I wouldn’t want to live like that, because it’s painful for me.”

Tuminah’s testimony has encouraged other Indonesian survivors to come forward. Some of girls had been taken to similar premises, under false promises of becoming actors in a travelling troupe.

Another survivor previously told BBC Indonesian that she was only nine years old when a Japanese officer raped her for four days straight.

Japan has issued formal apologies for the comfort women issue, but these efforts have been deemed insincere by some survivors and advocates.

Meanwhile, some Indonesians say their own government has failed comfort women seeking reparations and closure.

“How can I put it? Indonesia seems to have forgotten about the ianfu issue,” Hening told BBC Indonesia. It’s “futile” to ask for measures to “improve their status”, she said. “The Indonesian government won’t listen.”