Previously, both countries were embroiled in a diplomatic crisis following Tuesday’s terrorist attack in Kashmir. On Friday, India accused Pakistan of violating the ceasefire last night along the “Line of Control,” the de facto border that separates the two countries in the Kashmir region.

“There were incidents of small arms fire at some points along the Line of Control initiated by Pakistan. The firing was effectively responded to. No casualties were reported,” an unnamed Indian Army source said. Ceasefire violations along the Line of Control are relatively common, with both countries accusing each other of initiating attacks and claiming they only use force defensively in response.

This latest exchange of fire, however, comes at a time of heightened tension between India and Pakistan, which are embroiled in a severe diplomatic crisis following Tuesday’s terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed. This was the deadliest attack against civilians in Kashmir since March 2000, when 36 people were killed in an insurgent assault in the region.

India accuses Pakistan of providing support to the perpetrators of the attack, among whom, according to New Delhi, were two Pakistani nationals. In retaliation, the Indian government has ordered the expulsion of several Pakistani diplomats, the cancellation of all visas issued to Pakistani citizens, the closure of the land border with its neighboring country, and the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, which governs the distribution of water from several rivers between the two countries.

On Thursday, the Pakistani government responded with some reciprocal measures, including the expulsion of diplomats and the cancellation of certain types of visas. In addition to closing its airspace to Indian airlines, Pakistan warned that if India attempts to divert or halt the flow of water from any of the rivers covered under the treaty, it would consider it “an act of war.”

Both nuclear powers have disputed the divided Kashmir region since their independence from the British Empire in 1947 and have fought two wars and several smaller conflicts over it.

Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and Chinese counterpart Han Zheng bolster bilateral cooperation in energy, technology, and social development under the “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership for All Weather” framework.

On this April 24 in Beijing, , Venezuelan Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and Chinese Vice President Han Zheng strengthened bilateral ties on Thursday in Beijing during a meeting that reviewed over 600 cooperation agreements in strategic sectors, solidifying an alliance both governments describe as a “bulwark against global hegemony.”

The talks at the Great Hall of the People are part of Rodríguez’s working agenda in China, aimed at advancing joint projects under principles of sovereignty and mutual benefit. The visit follows the signing of 31 agreements during President Nicolás Maduro’s historic 2023 visit to Beijing and a 2024 energy-finance pact.

Both nations prioritized modernizing Venezuela’s oil infrastructure with Chinese technology, including refining projects and heavy crude exploration. Rodríguez highlighted China’s support in overcoming “unilateral aggressions” against Venezuela’s energy industry, referencing international sanctions.

Han Zheng emphasized “socialism with Chinese characteristics” as inspiration for Venezuela’s development, while Rodríguez praised Xi Jinping’s leadership in building a “new multipolar order.” Discussions included strategies to strengthen economic blocs as alternatives to Western systems.

The revised agreements include technology transfers in public health, specialized hospital construction, and scholarships for Venezuelan students at Chinese universities. Rodríguez stressed that this cooperation “prioritizes the people over corporate interests.” Both sides condemned “unilateral coercive measures” against Venezuela, with Han reaffirming China’s support for Venezuelan self-determination. Rodríguez thanked Beijing’s consistent diplomatic backing in multilateral forums.

Plans include creating a binational fund to finance agricultural tech and 5G telecommunications projects. Maduro and Xi are scheduled for a virtual summit in June to sign new AI and minin agreements. Rodríguez concluded by asserting that this alliance “demonstrates the Global South can build sovereign development models,” while China reaffirmed its commitment to making Venezuela its top energy partner in Latin America.

UN reports warn that resettling thousands of hardened fighters in Syria could transform it into a hub for exporting terror. With Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s rise to power in Damascus after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, developments in Syria are raising fears of attempts to normalize extremist groups with a long history of terrorism and jihadi ideology.

Accepting these groups as legitimate rulers—without holding them accountable for their terrorist past—could open the door for other terrorist organizations to pursue control of the region, posing a serious threat to Middle East stability.

From Saydnaya to the Legitimization of Extremists

The Saydnaya prison, near the Syrian capital, has been transformed into a media symbol justifying Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s ascent. Led by figures like Ahmad al-Shar’ (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), a former senior Al-Qaeda commander, the group portrays Saydnaya as a site of Sunni suffering to lend moral legitimacy to organizations with documented terrorist histories. Syrian journalist Sarkis Qassarjian argues that “depicting Saydnaya as Sunni persecution aims to provide an ethical veneer for groups whose extremist ideology and violent actions are well-documented.”

The Impossibility of a Civilian Turnaround

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which evolved from Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria), casts doubt on its ability to transform into a moderate, civilian governing body. Political analyst Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi observes, “Groups raised on jihad and violence cannot easily become civilian political forces, as their ideology is deeply rooted in extremism.” A report by the “Mustaqbal” (Future) Center supports this view, noting that “superficial changes in HTS’s rhetoric—such as toning down religious discourse—are tactical adaptations, not fundamental transformations.”

Having carried out terrorist operations and attracted thousands of foreign fighters, these groups cannot shed their jihadi principles without incurring tremendous risk. A United Nations report reveals that over 16,000 foreign fighters joined extremist organizations in Syria and Iraq, making their reintegration into a civilian governance system virtually impossible.

Appetites for Terror

Accepting Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham as a legitimate authority without prosecuting its leaders for past crimes sends a dangerous message to other terrorist groups in the region. Ahmad al-Shar’, once linked to the 9/11 attacks, is now head of a de facto government in Syria. If the world accepts his leadership despite his record, why wouldn’t other extremist organizations attempt regime overthrow and power seizure by similar means?

Writer Hassan Tahiri warns that “normalizing extremist groups encourages a new generation of terrorists who see violence as a pathway to power.” A report by the Washington Institute adds, “Failure to hold leaders like al-Shar’ accountable erodes justice and reinforces impunity, opening the door to regional chaos.”

The Role of Sponsor States

Regional powers such as Qatar—which has financed Islamist factions—and Turkey—the official backer of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—play significant roles in bolstering the new extremist governance. They seek to rebrand these groups and figures like al-Shar’ through moderated rhetoric and a more palatable image. Yet recent atrocities—in March 2025, thousands of Alawites were reportedly killed in their own areas by extremist factions now ruling Syria—underscore the impossibility of producing genuine reform despite HTS’s attempts at rhetorical change. A BBC report suggests this support is driven by geopolitical interests, like filling Syria’s political vacuum, rather than genuine belief in HTS’s transformation.

Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges

Under Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Syria confronts immense challenges, including managing sectarian and factional diversity. The Future Center warns that “fundamentalist groups, which fragmented into over 1,000 factions in Iraq, could become ticking time bombs in Syria.” Al-Shar’’s plans to form a national army or convene a national dialogue also face criticism for lacking popular legitimacy, according to the Washington Institute.

Regional Threat Scenario

Continued normalization of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham could lead to catastrophic outcomes by emboldening and expanding extremist ambitions. HTS’s success might inspire other groups to pursue power through violence, threatening an already unstable region. Moreover, the group’s failure to rein in hardened militant factions risks triggering new civil wars within Syria. The UN and BBC reports warn that resettling thousands of hardened fighters in Syria could transform it into a hub for exporting terror.

In sum, normalizing extremist groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—without accountability for their terrorist history—poses a grave danger to the Middle East’s future. Ahmad al-Shar’s shift from Al-Qaeda commander to political leader sends a perilous signal that violence can be a path to power, undermining justice and encouraging regional disorder.

Drafts of agreement options cannot be made public so that they do not lose their effectiveness, Peskov explained. On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Russia will not publicly discuss the details of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan for the Ukrainian conflict.

“There are many leaks in the media. Any draft of the agreement options cannot be made public. As soon as they are made public, they lose their effectiveness,” he said in response to questions about the plan. More specifically, journalists asked Peskov whether Russia expects Ukraine to drop any territorial claims over the Crimean Peninsula—something President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected so far.

“The specific elements of the agreement will not be discussed publicly, so we will not comment on any particular issue,” the Kremlin spokesperson emphasized, reiterating that Russia opposes the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine once the conflict ends.

“In effect, those would be forces and equipment from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),” Peskov explained.

On Wednesday, Axios reported that the “final offer” Trump has made to achieve peace in Ukraine includes official U.S. recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and unofficial recognition of Russian control over nearly all areas occupied since the beginning of the Russian military operation in February 2022.

Citing sources familiar with the proposal, the U.S. outlet stated that the Trump administration expects a response from Ukraine to this offer as early as Wednesday.

The one-page document presented by the United States to Ukrainian officials in Paris last week describes it as Trump’s “final offer.” Zelensky rejected any territorial concessions, after which U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio canceled his trip to London, where he was scheduled to hold consultations with his Ukrainian counterpart and European allies. The White House also insisted that it is prepared to withdraw from the process if the parties do not reach an agreement soon.

Volodymyr Zelensky’s refusal to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea deepens the diplomatic stalemate and highlights growing international pressure for a negotiated solution, as sectors of the Latin American left question the dominant narrative about the war.

Volodymyr Zelensky’s refusal to accept Russia’s claim over Crimea has deepened tensions, making peace negotiations harder. The standoff highlights growing pressure on Ukraine to compromise, even as critics warn against ignoring the rights of ordinary people caught in the conflict.

Ukraine’s president insists Crimea is Ukrainian and won’t legally recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation, despite calls from Moscow and even former U.S. President Donald Trump to soften his stance.Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused Zelensky of sabotaging peace efforts, calling his position “irresponsible” and “schizophrenic.”The ex-president claimed Zelensky’s stubbornness could lead Ukraine to “lose everything” if peace isn’t reached soon.

Sectors of the Latin American left have pointed out the contradiction of Western governments—who have historically intervened militarily in other regions,now presenting themselves as defenders of Ukrainian sovereignty. This critical view recalls that NATO and the United States have violated peace and sovereign rights in countries such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and warns against uncritically accepting the official Western narrative about the war in Ukraine.

Russia says Crimea joined it legally after a 2014 referendum where 97% of voters backed the move. But Ukraine and most nations call the vote a sham, held under military occupation.With neither side backing down, the war drags on. Ukraine’s left-wing critics say Zelensky’s government risks fueling nationalism instead of pushing for a fair deal.