Austria has ordered four Russian diplomats to leave the country over suspected espionage, declaring them persona non grata following findings by Austrian security authorities, Austrian media outlet Heute reported on 23 October.

The expulsions come as European countries step up efforts to counter suspected Russian intelligence operations amid Moscow’s war against Ukraine. Three of the diplomats worked at the Russian Embassy in Vienna, while the fourth served in Russia’s delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is headquartered in Vienna. 

Austria’s Foreign Ministry said the four had engaged in “activities incompatible with their diplomatic status,” a term usually used for spying, Reuters reported. It did not disclose details of the alleged activities or the intelligence findings behind the decision.

The three embassy diplomats were declared persona non grata under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The fourth, who worked on military security and arms control at Russia’s OSCE delegation, was also ordered to leave Austria. 

Vienna remains a hub for Russian intelligence

The latest expulsions bring the number of Russian diplomats Austria has expelled since 2020 to 18, according to Reuters. In May 2026, Austria expelled three Russian Embassy employees suspected of using antennas on diplomatic buildings to intercept satellite internet data transmitted by international organizations based in Vienna. 

Vienna’s concentration of international organizations, including the OSCE and United Nations agencies, has made it a key location for intelligence activity. A 2024 report by The Wall Street Journal, described Vienna as a major Russian spy hub for operations targeting Western countries, including surveillance of arms supplies to Ukraine.

Explore further

WSJ: Vienna has become major Russian spy hub for anti-Western operations in Europe

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Dmitry Lyubinsky said Moscow’s response to the expulsions was unavoidable, according to Russian state news agency TASS, AP reported.

Mango, il noto marchio internazionale di moda nato a Barcellona, dà il via a un piano di espansione sul territorio italiano che porterà all’apertura di circa 100 posti di lavoro da inserire in 22 nuovi negozi anche nelle Regioni del Mezzogiorno, tra cui Sicilia e Sardegna, entro il 2027.

Il piano di sviluppo è motivato soprattutto da un incremento del 30% del fatturato su suolo nazionale, rafforzato anche dalla partnership con il gruppo Coin.

Quali sono i profili ricercati

Le ricerche di personale per la rete di punti vendita riguardano diverse figure operative e gestionali, con contratti di vario tipo, che non escludono opportunità di tirocinio per giovani ai primi passi nel settore retail:

• direttore e assistente di filiale, per la gestione commerciale e organizzativa del punto vendita, il coordinamento del team e il raggiungimento degli obiettivi di vendita;
• direttore di reparto, dedicati alla supervisione dei settori e all’organizzazione dell’area vendita;
• visual merchandiser, responsabili dell’allestimento delle vetrine e dell’esposizione dei prodotti secondo le direttive aziendali;
• addetti alle vendite per l’accoglienza, l’assistenza al cliente e la cura degli spazi espositivi;
• addetto alla gestione del magazzino, il ricevimento delle merci e il riassortimento dei capi.

La mappa delle assunzioni

Le selezioni attualmente attive sono distribuite su gran parte della Penisola per le sedi già operative e per le nuove aperture in programma:

Come presentare la candidatura online

Per consultare l’elenco completo delle offerte di lavoro e inviare la propria candidatura bisogna accedere alla piattaforma per le carriere del gruppo consultando la sezione Lavora con noi. Attraverso il portale si possono filtrare le offerte per sede, tipologia oraria e contrattuale, selezionare l’annuncio d’interesse e compilare il modulo digitale, allegando il proprio Curriculum Vitae aggiornato.

È sempre consentito inoltrare la propria candidatura spontanea nel database, in modo che i recruiter possano selezionare i profili adatti alle necessità dei punti vendita.

Altri annunci per addetti alle vendite nel settore retail

Le selezioni di Mango non sono le uniche cui poter accedere senza esperienza. Si segnalano i reclutamenti curati da Poste Italiane per portalettere e addetti agli sportelli, le offerte di lavoro promosse da Fincantieri per figure operative e impiegatizie.

Russian hostile activity costs the UK at least £2 billion (US$2.7 billion) annually, according to a recent report by Scottish MP Graeme Downie, who has called on the government to measure what these actions cost Britain. But this figure is just the baseline. In reality, a profound shift in Moscow’s approach to sabotage means the […]

The post Russian espionage evolves from elite spies to gig operatives appeared first on Asia Times.

• My husband and I have different approaches to investing.
• He's risk-tolerant, and I'm a bit more risk-averse.
• Still, we've managed to talk through financial decisions and find a common ground.

The conversation started because of a windfall: it was the first month that we didn't have the preschool tuition payment because my son was starting kindergarten. "I'd love for this money not to just disappear into the monthly budget," I said to my husband.

He nodded, and immediately had a suggestion. "What if we used it to start up a brokerage account? It'd be good to have some investments that are accessible without penalty before retirement."

Our approaches to investing differ

I knew, deep down, that this was a reasonable response to my point: we both already were on board with the idea of paying ourselves first, where we commit to an amount ahead of time for savings and retirement investments and then live on whatever we earn above that. This strategy served us well, and I wasn't opposed… exactly.

"I was actually hoping to use some of it to add to our emergency fund," I told him slowly. "And maybe getting some additional solar panels I've been looking at."

We have recently lived through instability that made me really appreciate the kinds of standard comforts that are currently easily accessible. Our family experienced the impact of a major hurricane only two years ago (Hurricane Helene), and when water, electricity, and telecommunications were interrupted for days and then weeks, I realized that a relatively modest amount of money and supplies would have made weathering a period of instability easier.

This is the place where my husband and I diverge: I tend to see things somewhat pessimistically, believing there's a good chance supply chains will be interrupted more than a few times during our lifetimes due to a variety of factors.

My husband has a generally optimistic, risk-tolerant approach to life. He knows we've made a solid plan for retirement, so he sees that a brokerage account offers promising returns (not guaranteed, but based on historical data) on funds that we've worked hard to earn. I'm sometimes fearful of the possibility of losing everything in a stock market crash.

I don't think either of us is truly at odds with the other person: my husband witnessed Helene and set to work setting up a battery backup system for our solar panels, an impressive feat and investment that falls more in line with my own risk-averse nature.

And I've never squashed his goals of investing for both short and long-term stability, even if, deep down, I want all our savings in high-yield savings accounts with FDIC protection.

We've learned how to figure out what's right for us

In order to make these conversations civil and positive, we tend to follow three steps.

First, we each get to make the case for why this investment, and why right now.

I think some of the way that we both get over our anxieties about spending or saving well is that we want to be heard, so he hears me out when I want to construct an expensive greenhouse on our property to grow more food, and I hear him out when he identifies that our current ages merit a somewhat risk-tolerant strategy so that we can reap the benefits when the market jumps higher.

Frequently, this process of hearing each other out helps us find an in-between pretty organically, and finding an in-between is the second step. Sometimes, we realize that, for instance, we are too busy to take full advantage of a greenhouse right now and should table it for a year or two. However, maybe this is a good year to invest in a higher-speed home charger for our electric car. Because many of his goals are "invest as much as possible," it's usually possible to buy some portion of the physical items I want while still contributing to our investments.

When I'm advocating for a deeper emergency fund, housed in a high-yield savings account rather than a market-invested brokerage account, I typically ask that we contribute in a percentage-based way. If I ask, for instance, for a windfall to be split 30/70, he gets to invest 70% of the money toward higher yields, and I get 30% in a very secure account. It's not exactly what either of us would like, but it ultimately gives us some benefits of both risk-averse and risk-tolerant strategies.

Finally, any time we find a split that really feels aligned for us, we see if we can make it a rule for the future, the third step. No one loves having to reinvent the wheel every time new money conversations come up. When that 70/30 split worked well for us once, I've returned to it for later money decisions, and while it sometimes needs to be adapted, it lets us balance each of our needs without a long discussion. My husband, famously of few words, likes when we can keep the conversations a little shorter and get back to playing a board game or watching a silly TV show to relax.

When we hear each other out, find a useful middle ground, and operationalize the result for future use, we find ways to invest in both a more secure and a more growth-focused future, favoring methods that work well for both our risk tolerance levels.

Official forecasts show country will meet energy demand by paying high prices to secure imports

Great Britain is expected to pay some of the highest energy costs in Europe this winter as its reliance on imports to ensure a steady supply is forecast to deepen.

Energy system operators have said the country will have enough gas and electricity to meet demand over the coldest months – in part because of paying higher market prices than neighbouring markets to secure imports.

“The ‘job’ … has been mostly accomplished,” said a senior official in Belgium’s spy service, Hugues Brulin, in a WhatsApp message to the Belgian then EU commissioner, Didier Reynders.

“Bravo for the work you did,” said Reynders.

It was back in 2022, and, at least on the surface, they were chatting about a staff reshuffle inside Belgium’s intelligence service, La Sûreté de l’Etat/Veiligheid van de Staat (VSSE) — which was already a peculiar thing for Brulin to be doing on WhatsApp with an EU official.

But their messages, seen by EUobserver and published in full below, were now also evidence in a Belgian police investigation into Reynders on money-laundering charges, which painted them in the light of a potentially criminal conspiracy.

They reconfirmed that Belgian authorities were looking into wider allegations of Reynders’ possible collusion with Russia.

Brulin’s real “job” had been to stop the VSSE from probing Reynders and his potential Russia links, according to five former and current Belgian intelligence officers who spoke to EUobserver.

And Brulin also WhatsApp-ed Reynders on how to “counterattack” a Russia whistleblower.

The 68-year-old liberal politician from Liège, in French-speaking southern Belgium, had had a glittering career before his sudden fall from grace in December 2024, when Belgian police raided his properties, and before he was subsequently charged in 2025 with having laundered some €1m via the ING Bank, using lottery tickets and cash deposits.

Reynders had been EU justice commissioner from 2019 until 30 November 2024 (just four days prior to the police raid) and Belgium’s foreign and defence minister from 2011 to 2019.

And Belgium had vetted and cleared him to read “top secret” national, EU, and Nato documents.

Meanwhile, Europe was scandalised to learn, on 10 October, that Germany’s former spy chief had been arrested for selling secrets.

But if a man with Reynders’ CV was also found guilty of corruption and foreign collusion, it would be yet another security fiasco for Western allies.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."

Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)

What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.

Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)

Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.

Rent

In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."

Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."

"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.

Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.

When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."

I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.

Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."

This one belonged in the trash.

Sports Betting

In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."

I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.

The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.

If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.

Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.

Homelessness

In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.

"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."

The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.

In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.

Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.

Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.

Ethanol

Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.

"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."

What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.

The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.

Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.

SWAT Raids

In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.

So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.

The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.

Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."

Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.

When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.

I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.

Tipping

In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."

Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.

It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.

Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.

To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.

The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The selected productions will screen on public television and the digital platform Nuestro Cine MX.

Mexico will commemorate World Day for Audiovisual Heritage with a special program organized by cultural institutions, including film screenings, premieres, and activities to promote the preservation of the nation’s film heritage.

RELATED: Mexico Launches Film Educational Program for Elementary and Middle Schoolers

Between October 27 and November 3, seven films from the collection of the Mexican Film Institute (IMCINE) will be screened in eleven independent venues across nine states.

The selected productions will also screen on public television and the digital platform Nuestro Cine MX, expanding public access to materials considered part of Mexico’s audiovisual heritage.

One of the program’s main attractions will be the screening of the restored version of “Valle de Mexico” (1976), a short documentary by Ruben Gamez that portrays the region’s rapid urban growth during the 1970s.

The text reads, “We celebrate World Audiovisual Heritage Day with a program dedicated to the preservation of Mexican filmic memory. The screening will feature restored short films and digitized materials that are part of our collection.”

The restoration of this film was carried out by IMCINE in collaboration with Estudios Churubusco, using a positive print preserved in the archives of the National Film Archive (Cineteca Nacional).

The program also includes outstanding Mexican films such as “Un cuento de ciudad,” “Amada,” “El héroe,” “Hasta los huesos,” “El fantasma del convento,” and “Cronos,” works by renowned Mexican filmmakers.

Secretary of Culture Claudia Curiel said these activities reflect the institution’s commitment to preserving audiovisual heritage, as well as to encouraging new generations to learn about their history through Mexican cinema.

teleSUR: JP

Source: Prensa Latina

Norway has put into force a new round of sanctions against Russia that hits banks, listed oil refineries, ports, airports, and suppliers of Russia’s military industry, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry announced. The rules mirror the EU’s 21st sanctions package, which Brussels adopted in July.

The EU’s 22nd package, adopted on 12 October, is principally a list of names, while the 21st brought significant new measures, lawyers noted. Among them are new tools against the shadow fleet, the tankers with murky ownership that Russia uses to move oil around sanctions. That fleet also sails along Norway’s coast, and a new Norwegian Coastal Administration report found that it poses a growing threat to security and the environment there.

Banks, refineries, and Sheremetyevo

Norway is not an EU member, but it has joined every EU sanctions package against Russia, with a few exceptions and national adjustments. Oslo backed this one politically on 11 August, and the rules took effect on 21 October. Part of the package was already in force. It placed travel restrictions and asset freezes on 48 people and asset freezes on 168 entities, and it listed 41 shadow fleet vessels on 14 August.

Norway’s transaction ban now covers 33 more Russian credit and financial institutions. A separate ban covers 22 more abroad, including in India, Mongolia, Nigeria, and the UAE.

Explore further

Norway sends 69 Russians home without their ship, held for Ukraine

Another transaction ban reaches listed refineries in Russia and third countries that process Russian oil or help dodge sanctions. A Georgian refinery joins that list on 25 January 2027. The same ban adds two Russian ports and four Russian airports, including Moscow’s Sheremetyevo.

Drone gear and the shadow fleet

Export curbs on dual-use goods now cover 51 new entities that back Russia’s military industry. Some are in China, including Hong Kong, and others are in India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Türkiye, and the UAE. The banned-exports list adds nickel and beryllium powder, along with drone gear such as jamming and interception systems, launchers, and servo motors.

Oslo can now also list ships that service sanctioned shadow fleet tankers or swap cargo with them at sea. Elsewhere in Europe, France’s navy and UK forces have boarded sanctioned shadow fleet tankers this year.

Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump are arsonists who play at being firefighters. Nigel Farage is finding that act harder to pull off in Andy Burnham’s Britain

An election where one side represents chaos will nearly always be won by the party that promises order instead. Public fatigue after years of turbulent Tory rule accounted for Labour’s 2024 landslide victory more than any policy in Keir Starmer’s manifesto. Across the Channel, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally (RN), is currently on course to win next year’s presidential poll with a pledge of “restored authority and security” for a country that has spent years cycling between enervating stasis and explosive crisis.

Le Pen has been boosted in recent days by scenes of city centres ablaze and shops being looted as student demonstrations mutated into riots. Street confrontation is a more standard feature of the political repertoire in France than in most settled democracies, but the destruction was disturbing by any measure.

Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist

Democrats on the US Senate Armed Services Committee called on the Pentagon on Monday to reveal how much President Donald Trump’s Iran war is costing American taxpayers, citing “ongoing efforts to hide the true cost.” US Central Command (CENTCOM) told Congress that the war had cost $43.6 billion as of September 3. But in Monday’s […]

The post Calls mount for a true accounting of Trump’s Iran war appeared first on Asia Times.

Subject to Change: A Dance for David Bowie will explore how the musician ‘practised a form of artistic reincarnation’, says choreographer Marcos Morau

‘Let’s dance,” sang David Bowie in 1983, commanding: “Put on your red shoes and dance the blues.” That call is to be answered – with footwear TBC – by an international dance production featuring new choral arrangements of songs from throughout his career.

Subject to Change: A Dance for David Bowie will be staged at Sadler’s Wells in London in autumn 2028 after a world premiere in Luxembourg. It will visit Tokyo in 2029. The show will explore how Bowie “practised a form of artistic reincarnation” according to Spanish choreographer Marcos Morau who is taking inspiration from the superstar’s transformations into personas such as Aladdin Sane and the Thin White Duke.