Donald Trump’s claim that Ukraine didn't fight for Crimea 11 years ago "when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired" is both disrespectful and false, Chairman of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis told Euronews.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine and Moscow soldiers entered Crimea in 2014, Ukraine’s foreign partners were asking Crimean authorities not to "provoke Russia," Chairman of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis told Euronews, rejecting Donald Trump’s claims that Ukraine didn't fight for it and "handed over to Russia without a shot being fired" instead.“All of our partners and allies at the time said that we should not provoke Russia, that they, together with the Ukrainian state, would definitely find forms and ways to resolve this crisis. I am quoting what they told me when I was in the occupied Crimea,” Refat Chubarov said.Chubarov recalled he spoke to the ambassadors of different countries almost every day and nearly all of them told him that they "hoped that the Crimean Tatars would not provoke the Russian military". "Because then there would be pogroms, would be very tragic events, and they would not be able to help civilians," he remembers being told.After the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, Moscow declared the Mejlis — the only authorised representative and executive body of the Crimean Tatar people — an extremist organisation and banned its activities in Russia and Russian-occupied Crimea. Chubarov was forced to leave the Black Sea peninsula shortly afterwards. In 2021, a Moscow-imposed court sentenced him to six years in prison on fabricated accusations of organising mass riots in 2014 and of issuing calls to "violate Russia’s integrity" — the wording used by the Kremlin to describe Crimean Tatars fiercely opposing the annexation. “Those who reproach us for not resisting should recall the cowardly position of their own states, which acted as guarantors of the security of the Ukrainian state under the Budapest Memorandum”, he told Euronews, referring to the US as one of the signatories of the memorandum.By signing the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, hoping that other signatories would protect the country.“But they were afraid, and now they reproach us for not being able to stand up to a nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. They reproach us for failing," he explained. "At that time, it was not only and not so much the Ukrainian state failed, but the world failed to stop the aggression of a nuclear state, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.”'Great disrespect' for those killedAnother claim by the US president, which angered and shocked Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, is that the peninsula was "handed over to Russia without a shot being fired".Chubarov calls it "a great disrespect for the Ukrainian military, who were killed in the first days of the occupation."“In the months following the occupation, in May and June, our young people were forcibly abducted. We later found some of them killed, some of them to this day we cannot find, we do not know where they are," he said."To say that Crimea was taken without a single shot being fired or without a single casualty is simply to disrespect the people who were in that situation and to admit to their ignorance of those events”.Meanwhile, Russia has not changed its plans to occupy all of Ukraine, according to Chubarov. However, given that Moscow couldn’t achieve it in more than three years since the full scale invasion, "Russia will hold on to Crimea until the very end because Putin needs Crimea as a reassurance to the Russian society to calm down the people, given that Russia couldn’t achieve anything else in over three years."“If the president of the United States somehow officially calls Crimea Russian territory, it would be a great excuse for Putin to get out of the mess he's in, and he would personally present it to Russian society as a huge victory,” he added.This would only strengthen the regime in Moscow, and it would not lead to peace, Chubarov concluded.

Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), a Mali-based terrorist group with links to Al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the 17 April killings.

Islamic militants killed at least 54 soldiers in northern Benin last week, the country's government has said. The attack took place in the west African nation's north-eastern Alibori department, which borders Burkina Faso, Niger and Nigeria.Benin's government originally said eight soldiers had died in last Thursday's attack, but significantly revised the death toll up on Wednesday. Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), a Mali-based terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda, said it was behind the killings. It claimed that it had killed 70 soldiers, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. Benin has seen terrorist activity increase in recent years, with extremist groups that operate in the Sahel region launching more cross-border attacks.The W-Arly-Pendjari Complex, a border area between Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger, is particularly affected by this violence. Speaking about the latest attack, Benin government spokesperson Wilfried Léandre Houngbédji said that neighbouring countries need to do more to combat the threat posed by jihadists. "The points where these attacks of 17 April took place are on the border, so you can understand that if, on the other side of the border, there was a force like ours, these attacks would not take place in this way or would not even occur," he said."The soldiers who have fallen are our children, our parents, our friends." JNIM also claimed responsibility for an attack in early January that left 28 Beninese soldiers dead.

More than 60,000 people have visited St Peter’s Basilica to bid farewell to Pope Francis. The queue started again at 6 am on Thursday, and thousands continue to arrive. Euronews journalist Maria-Michela D'Alessandro joined them.

By midday on Thursday, more than 60,000 people had already passed through St Peter’s Basilica to bid farewell to Pope Francis, as the public viewing entered its second day. The basilica had remained open continuously from Wednesday morning until 5:30 am on Thursday. Just half an hour later, at 6 am, the queue resumed as crowds once again began gathering in the cool Roman dawn, hoping to pay their last respects to the late pontiff. Among the early arrivals were Maria Luisa and Stefania, a mother and daughter from Sicily. Stefania now lives in Rome, and her mother had come to the capital for her granddaughter’s baptism this Saturday. But when they heard the news of Pope Francis’ death, their plans changed instantly. “We didn’t even think twice,” they said. “We knew we had to try and see him one last time.” They had been there before — when Pope John Paul II died, they joined a group of pilgrims from Sicily. Back then, it took them 16 hours to see his body. Nearby, Anthony, a Canadian on his honeymoon, stood quietly in line with his wife. Born into a Catholic family of Italian immigrants who moved to Canada in the 1950s, Anthony didn’t hesitate when he heard the news. “We’re only in Rome from Wednesday to Friday. But we knew this was something we couldn’t miss,” he told Euronews. For Anastasius, a Trappist monk from Hong Kong now studying in Rome, the moment was deeply spiritual. “First of all, I want to thank him for all his pastoral services to the Church over the past 12 years. I’m sure he has done a wonderful job for the people of God. And I hope the direction he has given to the Church will continue,” Anastasius said. By 8:15 am, an hour and 45 minutes after the new queue had started, those waiting had reached the security checks under the iconic colonnade of St.Peter’s Square. Journalists were not allowed to enter with cameras, but mobile phones were permitted. As the line advanced, workers were already placing rows of chairs in the square, preparing for Saturday’s funeral at 10 am. Crossing the Holy Door to see Pope Francis’s body Crossing the Holy Door in this context felt like a sacred passage for many. Most were silent. Those who spoke whispered reflections about Pope Francis — or quietly speculated about who might succeed him. Inside, the crowd moved slowly. Each person stopped for a few moments before the Pope’s body, lying in repose, then exited in silence through a side aisle. Adora and Erma, two women from the Philippines who now work in Rome, woke up at 4 am to be among the first in line. “We work today and we’re tired,” they said, “but we’re happy and sad at the same time.” Father Joseph described the moment with emotion. “I came to Rome in 2015, and since then, Pope Francis is the only pope I’ve known," he told Euronews. "Obviously, Pope Benedict was already retired. He accompanied my formation." "When I heard of his death, it was shocking — nobody expected it. Seeing his body was surreal. He looked so different. But I’m grateful to have come.” As the day goes on, thousands continue to arrive. The line shows no signs of shrinking. And inside the Basilica, the silence speaks volumes of love, respect, and the deep impression Pope Francis has left on the Catholic faithful.

The rare attack, which targeted mostly tourists and left 26 people dead, shocked and outraged Indians, prompting calls for action against Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have cancelled visas for each other's nationals as a diplomatic rift between them widens following Tuesday's mass shooting by militants in the disputed territory of Kashmir.Indian authorities said all visas issued to Pakistani nationals will be revoked from Sunday, adding that all Pakistanis currently in India must leave before their visas expire based on the revised timeline.The country also announced other measures, including cutting the number of diplomatic staff and closing the only functional land border crossing between the countries.Islamabad also reacted angrily after New Delhi suspended a water-sharing treaty on Thursday and blamed Pakistan for the attack, which left 26 people dead.The landmark Indus Water Treaty has survived two wars between the countries, in 1965 and 1971, and a major border skirmish in 1999.The pact was brokered by the World Bank in 1960 and allows for sharing the waters of a river system that is a lifeline for both countries, particularly for Pakistan's agriculture.Pakistan said it had nothing to do with the attack and warned that any Indian attempt to stop or divert flow of water would be considered an "act of war" and met with "full force across the complete spectrum" of Pakistan's national power.In Islamabad and other cities across Pakistan, demonstrators rallied against India's suspension of the treaty, demanding the government retaliate.Pakistan has closed its airspace for all Indian-owned or Indian-operated airlines and suspended all trade with India, including to and from any third country.Tuesday's attack was the worst assault in years targeting civilians in the restive region that has seen an anti-India rebellion for more than three decades.The rare attack, which targeted mostly tourists, shocked and outraged Indians, prompting calls for action against Pakistan.The Indian government did not publicly produce any evidence of Pakistani state involvement, but said the attack had "cross-border" links to Pakistan.The killings have put pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government to respond aggressively."India will identify, track and punish every terrorist, their handlers and their backers," Modi said at a public rally Thursday."We will pursue them to the ends of the Earth." Pakistan denied any connection to the attack, which was claimed by a previously unknown militant group calling itself the Kashmir Resistance.Pakistan's National Security Committee condemned India's "belligerent measures."It said that while Pakistan remained committed to peace, it would never allow anyone to "transgress its sovereignty, security, dignity and inalienable rights."Government ministers on both sides have hinted that the dispute could escalate to military action.Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told local Dunya News TV channel that "any kinetic step by India will see a tit-to-tat kinetic response."Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh pledged on Wednesay to "not only trace those who perpetrated the attack but also trace those who conspired to commit this nefarious act on our soil" and hinted at the possibility of military strikes.India and Pakistan each administer a part of Kashmir, but both claim the territory in its entirety.New Delhi describes all militancy in Kashmir as Pakistan-backed terrorism; Pakistan denies this ,and many Muslim Kashmiris consider the militants to be part of a home-grown freedom struggle.Modi overturned the status quo in Kashmir in August 2019, when his government revoked the region’s semi-autonomous status and brought it under direct federal control.However, relations with Pakistan remained stable as the two countries renewed a previous ceasefire agreement along their border in 2021, which has largely held despite militant attacks on Indian forces in the region.

Greens in Berlin push to abolish the neutrality law, claiming it discriminates against Muslim women wearing headscarves and hampers their careers in public service.

The Greens party's group in the Berlin House of Representatives has made a motion calling for the abolition of the so-called Neutrality Act, a law that prohibits civil servants from visibly wearing or displaying religious symbols while at work.The 2005 law, which affects teachers, police and judicial officers, among others, has already been brought to court several times. Since then, there have been further complaints, particularly in connection with the wearing of headscarves by Muslim civil servants. The law also bans Jewish men from wearing a yarmulka, yet allows the wearing of crucifixes.Supporters of the law, however, argue that the act does not target a particular group and is solely concerned with separating public office from religion or ideology and keeping it secular. However, the Berlin Greens parliamentary group says that the neutrality law "hinders the access of women who have chosen to wear a headscarf to professions in the public service, and in some cases, makes this impossible.""Highly qualified women are not allowed to practise their profession because they wear a headscarf. That is a problem," Green Party politician Tuba Bozkurt told Tagesspiegel newspaper, calling it a "de facto professional ban".The Greens believe their initiative would enable women to work as civil servants in the administration of justice, the prison system and the police, even if they wear a headscarf.The centre-right CDU and centre-left SPD parties, which have agreed on a ruling coalition after the federal elections in February, are not expected to want to change the existing law.The current coalition agreement, which still needs to be agreed upon by the two parties, states the Neutrality Act is to be reworked "in a court-proof manner to reflect the current case law of the Federal Constitutional Court."How did the Neutrality Act come to be? In 2015, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a landmark judgment, ruling that a general ban on headscarves would not be compatible with the constitution, as it would disproportionately restrict fundamental rights. The ruling further stated that such a ban could be justified only if a headscarf posed a threat to school peace or state neutrality.The Berlin education administration only relented in 2023, years after the judgment. Previously, the state authorities had to pay compensation to a teacher of Muslim faith in 2018 because she was not hired due to her wearing a headscarf. The teacher received around €5,200 in compensation under the General Equal Treatment Act due to what the labour court deemed to be religious discrimination.As a result, the Berlin Senate Administration issued a letter to all schools stating that, in the future, it would cease the "literal application of the Neutrality Act" and follow the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling. However, what constitutes a threat to school peace remains undefined.The Neutrality Act is based on another Federal Constitutional Court ruling in 2003, when Fereshta Ludin brought the case to court, stating she wanted to work as a teacher in Baden-Württemberg after completing her studies, but was prohibited from practising her profession because of her headscarf.The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the decision of the competent authority and the rulings of the lower courts violated the teacher's fundamental rights — in particular her freedom of religion and the right to equal access to public office.Furthermore, the court found that there was no legal basis for such a ban in Baden-Württemberg at the time. However, the court confirmed that wearing a headscarf could come into conflict with state neutrality. According to German law, it is up to the individual federal states to decide whether teachers are allowed to wear a headscarf in schools. As a result, Berlin and seven other federal states introduced the Neutrality Act.