Israel intensifies Gaza bombardment, kills 80 people, as Trump visits Gulf

Israeli military strikes killed at least 80 Palestinians across the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, local health authorities said, in an intensification of the bombardment as U.S. President Donald Trump visits the Middle East.

Medics said most of the dead, including women and children, were killed in a barrage of Israeli airstrikes on houses in the Jabalia area of northern Gaza.

Later on Wednesday, the Israeli military issued new evacuation orders to people in several districts in Gaza City, forcing thousands of Palestinians to leave their shelters.

The areas threatened by the evacuation warnings included several schools and the largest Shifa Hospital, according to a map published by the Israeli army.

Witnesses and medics said shortly after the evacuation orders Israeli planes carried several airstrikes against targets within Gaza City.

"Some victims are still on the road and under the rubble where rescue and civil emergency teams can't reach (them)," the health ministry statement said.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Israel's military had no immediate comment. It said it was trying to verify the reports.

Reuters television footage showed residents returning to the ruins of their homes. Some sifted through the remains of walls and furniture, looking for documents and belongings.

"They fired two rockets, they told us the house of Moqbel (had been hit)," said Hadi Moqbel, who lost relatives in the attack in Jabalia. "We came running, we saw body parts on the ground, children killed, the woman killed and a baby killed - his head was exploded like a flower. He was two months old."

Israeli press reports on Wednesday cited security officials as saying they believed Hamas military leader Mohammad Sinwar and other senior officials had been killed in a strike on Tuesday on what the Israeli military described as a command and control bunker under the European Hospital in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis.

There was no confirmation by the Israeli military or Hamas. On Wednesday, witnesses and medics said an Israeli airstrike hit a bulldozer that approached the area of the strike at the European Hospital, wounding several people.

Late on Tuesday, Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed militant group allied with Hamas, fired rockets from Gaza towards Israel. Shortly before Israel hit back, its military issued evacuation orders to residents in the area of Jabalia and nearby Beit Lahiya.

TRUMP VISIT

Palestinians hope Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates will provide pressure for a reduction of violence. Hamas on Monday released Edan Alexander, the last known living American hostage it had been holding.

Trump said in Riyadh on Tuesday that more hostages would follow Alexander and that the people of Gaza deserved a better future. He is not visiting Israel during his Middle East trip.

Ceasefire efforts have faltered. Hamas talked to the United States and Egyptian and Qatari mediators to arrange Alexander's release, and Israel has sent a team to Doha to begin a new round of talks.

On Tuesday, Trump's special envoys Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler met hostage families in Tel Aviv and said they saw a better chance of an agreement for the hostages' release following the deal over Alexander.

Hamas said on Wednesday the continued attacks indicated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to "escalate the aggression and massacres against civilians to undermine those (ceasefire) efforts". Israel has blamed Hamas for the continuing war.

The U.S. has presented a plan to reopen humanitarian aid deliveries in Gaza using private contractors. Israel, which imposed a total blockade of supplies going into Gaza from March 2, has endorsed the plan but it has been rejected by the United Nations and international aid agencies.

Israel invaded Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack on southern Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken as hostages to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's military campaign has killed more than 52,900 Palestinians, according to local health officials. It has left Gaza on the brink of famine, aid groups and international agencies say.

Reuters

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Kremlin names delegation for Ukraine talks

Russian President Vladimir Putin late on Wednesday named the country’s delegation for proposed talks with Ukraine, expected to take place in Istanbul the next day.

The team will be led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who headed Moscow’s side during negotiations with Kiev in 2022. The delegation also includes Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, Deputy Defense Minister Aleksandr Fomin and the head of Russia’s military intelligence, Igor Kostyukov.

Apart from the negotiators themselves, Putin unveiled a team of experts who will also participate. It is composed of several senior military and civil officials, as well as diplomats.

Earlier in the day, Ukrainian media reports indicated the country’s leader Vladimir Zelensky was set to travel to Istanbul alongside several top officials, including his head of office Andrey Yermak, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga. The exact composition of the negotiating team, however, is expected to be determined by Zelensky on the spot.

Putin offered on Sunday to resume direct talks with Kiev, stating that only negotiations could lead to “some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire.”

“We are set on serious negotiations with Ukraine. Their aim is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to achieve a long-term lasting peace for a historical perspective,”the president said.

The offer got a mixed reaction from Ukraine and its supporters, who continued to insist that talks be preceded by at least a 30-day truce. After the proposal was backed by US President Donald Trump, however, Zelensky proclaimed his readiness to negotiate with the Russian president “personally” in Istanbul.

The Kremlin announcement of its team was met with apparent disappointment in Kiev. Zelensky’s aide Mikhail Podoliak launched a personal attack on Medinsky, claiming the Russian official was not the right figure to discuss unspecified “fundamental issues.”

“No, of course not, that’s not the format. The president can’t meet, especially with Medinsky – the status won’t be entirely clear,”Podoliak stated.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Putin, Trump to skip Ukraine's peace talks that Russian leader proposed

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putinindicated they would not attend what could be the first direct peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv in three years on Thursday, with the Kremlin sending instead a group of experienced technocrats.

Putin on Sunday proposed direct negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul on Thursday "without any preconditions". Late on Wednesday, the Kremlin said the delegation would include presidential adviser Vladimir Medinsky and Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Fomin - but Putin's name was not on the list.

After the Kremlin's delegation announcement, a U.S. official said Trump, who is on a three-nation tour of the Middle East, would not attend. The U.S. leader had said earlier that he was considering the option to participate.

While Putin had never confirmed he would attend in person, the absence of the Russian and U.S. presidents lowers the expectations for a major breakthrough in the war that Russia started in February 2022.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had challenged Putin to attend the talks "if he's not afraid," in an apparent contest to show Trump who wants peace more, Ukraine or Russia.

While the Kyiv leader was on his way to Turkey late on Wednesday, a Ukrainian official said, he had said he would take part in the talks only if Putin attended.

In his nightly video address on Wednesday Zelenskiy said that Ukraine would decide on its steps for peace talks in Turkey once there was clarity on Putin's participation.

"The answers to all questions about this war – why it started, why it continues – all these answers are in Moscow," Zelenskiy said. "How the war will end depends on the world."

Trump wants the two sides to sign up to a 30-day ceasefire to pause Europe's biggest land war since World War Two, and a Russian lawmaker said on Wednesday there could also be discussions about a huge prisoner of war exchange.

Zelenskiy backs an immediate 30-day ceasefire, but Putin has said he first wants to start talks at which the details of such a ceasefire could be discussed.

MORE SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA?

Trump, who is growing increasingly frustrated with both Russia and Ukraine as he tries to push them towards a peace settlement, said he was "always considering" secondary sanctions against Moscow if he thought it was blocking the process.

U.S. officials have spoken about possible financial sanctions as well as potential secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil.

The U.S. delegation to Turkey included Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior envoys Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said early on Thursday he had met with Rubio to share Zelenskiy's peace vision and "coordinate positions during this critical week."

Medinsky and Fomin, part of the Russian delegation, took part in the last set of negotiations between the two sides in the first weeks of the war. Other senior military and intelligence officials were also part of the Thursday delegation.

Direct talks between negotiators from Ukraine and Russia last took place in Istanbul in March 2022, a month after Putin sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in what he calls a "special military operation" to root out neo-Nazis.

Ukraine and its allies say the invasion was an unprovoked, imperial-style land grab.

With Russian forces grinding forward in Ukraine and now controlling about a fifth of the country, the Kremlin chief has offered few, if any, concessions so far. In his proposal at the weekend, he said that the talks in Turkey would be aimed at a durable peace.

He specifically mentioned the 2022 talks and the failed draft deal.

Under that deal, among others, Ukraine would have agreed to permanent neutrality in return for security guarantees from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, and other nations including Belarus, Canada, Germany, Israel, Poland and Turkey, according to a draft seen by Reuters.

But officials in Kyiv say agreeing to Ukrainian neutrality is a red line they will not cross.

RT/Reuters

You must have read the news that philanthropist Bill Gates plans to give away his wealth within the next 20 years. His charity foundation, which has been making various interventions in global public health, now has till December 31, 2045, to spend down about $200bn to facilitate health and human development. Even more fascinating is that Bill Gates wants the money to offset some of the imbalances caused by the Donald Trump administration’s abrupt cutbacks to health and development agencies, such as USAID and PEPFAR. Many of us are familiar with the Biblical narrative of a rich young ruler who came up to Jesus to ask what he needed to do to secure eternal life. He was asked to give up his wealth and follow the Saviour. We were told that the young ruler “went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions”. Few things in the world can be as hard for the truly rich to give up as their wealth. It must be relatively easier to give from little than to shrink the vast reserves of riches by as much as an inch.

Bill Gates is not only giving money to the world sorely in need of capital to develop, but it is also impressive how much he has committed to learning about issues of health and development in the world. In the interview he gave to the New York Times, he came across as having studied the scale of the problem well enough. This is a man seeking to attain eternal life by helping the most vulnerable people in the world to live.

Ordinarily, I am ambivalent about philanthropy. While I am not against charity, it appals me how the enterprise of giving can reinforce what it seeks to displace. The problem is worse in Nigeria, where faux philanthropy overtakes governance. The leaders who should provide basic amenities, public infrastructure, and a well-coordinated social safety net for the vulnerable will abjure their responsibilities and flaunt charity. You will see Governor So-and-so “empowering” this and that community by dashing them cartons of noodles or Keke Marwa or wheelbarrows! There is perhaps no word in the Nigerian lexicon that has been serially abused by our visionless leaders more than “empowerment”. What Nigerian leaders call “empowerment” is often an exhibition of the poverty of the people they have socially disenfranchised.

In the end, I took a few things away from reading about Bill Gates’ motivations for setting a 20-year clock for human development. One is his optimism that the world we live in can be better. You can see that ethic of hope in his conviction that longstanding problems like malaria can be permanently eliminated in Africa; that maternal mortality can be significantly reduced; that childhood mortality can become a thing of the past; and that the world can live far more prosperous lives. Years ago, I learned the value of hope from reading Olufemi Taiwo’s Africa Must Be Modern. In the book, he argues that hope necessarily propels society towards modernity and development.

Until then, hope was just an abstract idea for me. But reading through that book, I started to understand hope differently. Hope is what galvanises people even when the odds are demonstrably against them. From the field of science where people immerse themselves in experiments that might fail hundreds of times before they succeed to the arena of politics where leaders fight to pull their people from the brink of disaster and set them on the path of prosperity, the hope that what we are doing ultimately matters is what makes all the difference. Without hope, we cannot muster the self-discipline necessary for success. I am of the firm belief that our leaders’ lack of optimism about the ability of their country to make it is one of the reasons they imagine their actions are not consequential. Corrupt African leaders are not just mere thieves bent on despoiling their people; their wantonness expresses their deep cynicism about people’s chances. In his interview, Bill Gates seemed to express more hope for the future of poorer countries to live healthier and prosperous lives than you are likely to hear from their own leaders. He can afford to be detached from reality, but if the world changes, it is also because someone was naïve enough to be optimistic.

The second thing that struck me about Bill Gates’s commitment to alleviating poverty is his understanding of the subject, and that is why I think our renowned prosperity preacher, David Ibiyeomie, can learn something from him. Recently, a clip from a sermon he preached went viral. In the sermon, he proclaimed “God hates poverty” and “God hates poor people”. His subsequent attempts to clarify his message only further unfolded his mindset as someone who is superstitious about poverty. He proof-texts the Bible by overlooking every divine promise of reprieve for those who have been beaten by the hardships of life to select a few verses that support his prejudices. In a country where about 90 per cent (or more) of people live in the extreme conditions of multi-generational poverty and multi-dimensional poverty, it takes a lack of self-awareness to declare that even God hates poor people. If God hates poverty and the materially poor, then he must hate Africans!

Bill Gates, on the other hand, approaches poverty like a scientist. He sees the condition as a mere physiological one that can be treated if one rightly diagnoses it and applies the correct principles. One side is pessimistic and chooses to mythologise what is essentially a treatable condition; the other is optimistic enough to want to facilitate a world where capital investment and the principles of science can produce flourishing for humankind. The difference between the two is not merely the distinctions between “science” and “religion,” but about their respective moral visions. Please note that both religion and science are knowledge means that can be applied to engineer ethical solutions in the world. In the hands of a person who despairs about the fate of humans, the technologies of religion and science will produce nothing but death. The person who is invigorated with hope for humankind will apply principles from either science or religion to produce more life.

Finally, it is also ironic that the same Bill Gates, against whom some churches prayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, is also the person looking out for the good of the majority. It was funny, but churches, where pastors give annual prophecies, were blindsided by the global pandemic, while Bill Gates, who relied on scientific principles, accurately predicted its possibility years before it happened. I guess some of the preachers got envious because they gathered their ignorant flock and asked them to pray against Bill Gates as the “anti-Christ” or the “globalist”. Today, it is the same Bill Gates who is looking out for the good of the world. If Jesus were called to judge between the preachers who say we will be locked out of eternal life because of tithes and Bill Gates, who is demonstrating the ethics of generosity, empathy, and humanity, who do you think he would say practices true religion?

Punch

Marcel Schwantes

Having coached executive leaders for two decades, I know they are bombarded with decisions—big and small—every day. Do I take this call? Launch this product? Respond to that email? Hire this person?

It’s easy to fall into reactive mode, making snap decisions under pressure. Urgency has its place, but rushing to meet other people’s expectations rarely leads to clarity or long-term success. The best leaders learn to pause, step back, and focus on what truly matters—for them, their teams, and their business—before they act.

One of the simplest and most effective tools I’ve come across is the 10-10-10 rule, created by author and speaker Suzy Welch.

What is the 10-10-10 rule?

At its core, the 10-10-10 rule is a simple decision-making framework built around making smarter decisions by thinking beyond the moment. Whenever you’re facing a tough choice, ask yourself three questions:

• How will I feel about this in 10 minutes?
• How will I feel about it in 10 months?
• How will I feel about it in 10 years?

Think of it as your own mental time travel that helps you slow down, step outside the urgency of the now to consider the short-term and long-term impact of your decisions; it may also potentially keep you from making decisions you’ll regret later.

It’s deceptively simple but powerful. What I’ve noticed in countless coaching sessions with senior managers is that so many poor decisions happen because they’re overly influenced by short-term emotions—fear, ego, comfort, or urgency. When I apply the 10-10-10 framework on my high-level clients, it forces them to step back and weigh both short-term feelings and long-term consequences.

For leaders, this kind of mental time travel is more than a mindset—it’s a skill they must learn and apply. The best decisions often require holding two timelines in your head at once: what helps right now and what pays off down the road.

The 10-10-10 rule does exactly that. It gives you a structured way to avoid knee-jerk reactions and develop strategic patience—the kind that separates great leaders from impulsive ones.

How to apply the 10-10-10 rule

Here are a few practical ways to make the 10-10-10 rule work in your daily leadership routine:

1. Use it for hard conversations.

Before firing off that emotionally charged message or making a hasty decision out of fear, pause. Ask yourself:

Will I still feel this angry in 10 minutes?
Will I be proud of how I handled this in 10 months?
Will this action support the culture I want to lead in 10 years?

Chances are good that you’ll take a breath and choose a wiser path.

2. Run decisions by your future self.

When evaluating an opportunity, ask: Will this choice serve the person I want to be a decade from now?

This can help cut through temptations and distractions that do not serve your purpose or mission, and steer you back toward your long-term vision.

3. Make it a leadership habit.

Embed the 10-10-10 check into your leadership rhythm—team meetings, one-on-ones, even strategic planning. Encourage your team to use it too. It builds a culture of thoughtful, long-range thinking rather than reactive firefighting.

4. Write it down.

When facing a tough decision, journal your answers to each “10” timeframe. Be specific. Remember this rule: Writing forces clarity. I force my coaching clients to journal so they can gain more awareness into a situation. And you’ll have a record to reflect on—helpful when evaluating how your thinking has evolved.

Better decisions

No question, leadership requires making some really hard decisions. But here’s the thing: It’s not just about that. It’s about making better decisions—the kind that hold up under pressure, inspire trust, and align with who you want to become.

The 10-10-10 rule doesn’t promise easy answers. But it gives you a dependable compass. Use it regularly, and you’ll notice something powerful: Your decisions start compounding in the direction of your best future.

Inc

Tension is rising in Borno State after Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgents attacked four military bases, killing soldiers and stealing military vehicles, between Monday and Tuesday in the state.

PREMIUM TIMES reported Tuesday morning how suspected members of ISWAP attacked a military base in Marte late Monday night, killing seven soldiers and seizing three gun trucks.

Less than 24 hours after that attack on Marte, the insurgents attacked three more military bases in Dikwa, Rann, and Gajiram..

Update on Marte Attack

Suspected members of ISWAP carried out the first attack on the Forward Operation Base, 153 Battalion, located in Marte Local Government Area, minutes before 3 a.m. on Monday.

Sources who spoke to this reporter said the insurgents infiltrated Marte on foot from different directions, cordoned off the area and forced the soldiers to withdraw to Dikwa, a neighbouring community.

“The attack caught the soldiers unaware,” a Civilian Joint Task Force member revealed, adding that apart from the seven soldiers killed, the whereabouts of a few others were still unknown.

However, the source disputed reports that the insurgents stole three gun trucks from the base, stating that the assets were burned down along with the military base and other vehicles, including Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.

A local platform, YERWA EXPRESS NEWS, reported that on Monday morning, the insurgents were seen moving with their stolen motorcycles, weapons, and foodstuffs heading in the direction of Chukungudu, Krenuwa, and Klabariya, all villages within Borno and beyond.

How insurgents attacked Dikwa

In Dikwa, the headquarters of Dikwa Local Government Area of Borno state, the terrorists had a fierce battle with Nigerian Army troops.

They launched the attack about 13 hours after Monday’s attack on Marte. A source in Dikwa, who preferred to remain anonymous, said the troops “dealt with the insurgents”

He explained that the attack, which started around 1 a.m. on Tuesday, was quelled by the army, air force, and the civilian joint task force fighters after an hour.

Rann Attack

The insurgents were also reported to have attacked the 3 Battalion of the Nigerian Army in Rann, the headquarters of Kala Balge Local Area of Borno state, almost at the same time as they attacked Dikwa.

Sources, including YERWA EXPRESS NEWS, said the attack began around 12 am on Tuesday. They attacked the military formation with heavy machinery, casting fear among the people of the community.

“Five soldiers were confirmed dead, while six soldiers were injured. They also snatched three gun trucks before leaving the base,’ YERWA EXPRESS NEWS reported, quoting a source.

Gajiram attack

At Gajiram, the headquarters of Nganzai Local Government Area, sources said the insurgents launched their attack minutes after midnight on Tuesday, but were repelled. The terrorists retreated after an hour of a gun battle with troops.

“The Boko Haram came a minute past midnight. The soldiers chased them away. The terrorists only succeeded in burning a stool in Gajiram, nothing more,” a source in Gajiram told this reporter, requesting anonymity.

Governor Zulum confirms the attack

In a statement on Tuesday, Governor Babagana Zulum condemned the recent spate of attacks by Boko Haram and ISWAP in various parts of the state.

Zulum also sympathised with the victims of a bomb blast along the Maiduguri-Damboa Road, which occurred last Monday.

“These acts of terror are deeply condemnable. The recent tragic loss of our education staff, gallant troops, and innocent civilians is a painful reminder of the challenges we continue to face.

“I am more determined than ever to support the military, security agencies, and our volunteer forces in the fight to end terrorism and insurgency in our state,” Zulum said through his spokesperson, Dauda Illiya.

The governor recalled his recent visit to Gwoza, where he engaged with military personnel and the Izge community, as part of ongoing efforts to reinforce resilience and protect lives and property.

“The recent surge in attacks will not deter our resolve to tackle the scourge of the 16-year-long insurgency. I urge the people of Borno to remain resilient and prayerful. This is a partial eclipse — and we shall overcome it, Insha Allah,” the governor assured.

Zulum extended his prayers to the families of the fallen heroes, innocent civilians, and all citizens of Borno State.

The Nigerian military has yet to speak on the attacks.

PT

Nigerians are expected to pay more for their vehicle and drivers license renewals and new ones even as the Joint Tax Board (JTB) has approved an increment in price.

The new price adjustment will be effective Sunday, 8th June 2025.

By this announcement, the JTB, being the apex body for revenue authorities in Nigeria, urges affected members of the public to take note of the new prices, and implores relevant government agencies and Motor Vehicle Licencing Authorities to comply with the price adjustment.

In an advertorial sighted in one of the national dailies, the new approved prices for Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle number plates and driver’s licence as approved are as follows: Motor vehicle driver’s license for three years is N15,000 while for five years is N21,000. For tricycle/motorcycle drivers license, three years is N7,000 while five years is N11,000.

For number plates, the prices range in different categories and are as follow: Standard private vehicle number plate is N30,000; Standard commercial number plate, N30,000; Articulated vehicle number plate is N90,000; Dealer vehicle number plate is N100,000; Out of series number plate is N150,000; Fancy vehicle number plate is N400,000; Government standard vehicle number plate is N80,000; Government fancy vehicle number plate is N120,000.

Motorcycle number plate is N12,000; Fancy motorcycle number plate N50,000; Goverment standard motorcycle number plate – N20,000 and Govemment fancy motorcyle number plate N50,000.

The price adjustment, according to JTB, is due to the introduction of enhanced security features in the number plate and driver’s licence and incidental increase in production cost.

JTB stated that information on the price adjustment is on the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) website,www.frsc.gov.ng and the Motor Licencing Authority (MLA) at States’ Internal Revenue Service offices, or Motor Vehicle Administration Authorities across the country.

They noted that the price adjustment applies nationwide.

The Guardian

Israeli military intercepts missile launched from Yemen

The Israeli military said it intercepted a missile that was launched from Yemen towards Israel on Tuesday evening, and Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis claimed responsibility.

Sirens were heard in several places in Israel.

The militia group fired a hypersonic ballistic missile towards Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv, according to the group's military spokesperson Yahya Saree.

President Donald Trump announced on May 6 that the U.S. would stop bombing the Houthis as the group agreed to stop attacking U.S. ships, part of a 17-month campaign against Red Sea shipping intended to show solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

But the Houthis have continued to fire missiles and drones towards Israel, most of which the Israeli military says it has intercepted, without casualties or serious damage occurring.

Israel has been fighting a war in Gaza since a deadly raid by Palestinian militant group Hamas into southern Israel in October 2023, which prompted Israel's war in Gaza.

The Houthis are part of Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance against Israeli and U.S. interests in the Middle East, a group also including Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Israel has weakened those groups by assassinating top leaders and destroying military infrastructure since the Gaza war began, though Houthi capabilities appear largely intact.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine's Zelenskiy insists on face-to-face talks with Putin in Istanbul

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday he would attend talks with Russia on the war in Ukraine this week only if Vladimir Putin is also there, and goaded him by saying the Russian leader was scared to meet him face-to-face.

The Kremlin has yet to say whether Putin will take part in the talks scheduled to be held in Istanbul on Thursday, more than three years into the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two.

The planned talks have become the main focus of peace efforts led by U.S. President Donald Trump, who said he would send Secretary of State Marco Rubio and has also offered to attend.

Trump is also sending senior envoys Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg, three sources familiar with the plans said.

Zelenskiy said he wanted to negotiate an unconditional 30-day ceasefire as a step toward ending the war, and that Putin should take part in talks because "absolutely everything in Russia" depends on him.

"We want to agree on a beginning to the end of the war," Zelenskiy told a press conference. But he added: "He (Putin) is scared of direct talks with me."

Zelenskiy said he expected the U.S. and the European Union to impose "strong sanctions" if talks did not take place.

Moscow and Kyiv have both sought to show they are working towards peace after Trump prioritised ending the war, which has raged since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Russian bombs killed at least three people in Ukraine's Kharkiv region on Tuesday, a local official said.

Putin on Sunday proposed direct talks with Ukraine, after ignoring a Ukrainian offer for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Trump publicly told Zelenskiy to accept the proposal.

The Ukrainian leader then said he would be waiting for Putin in Istanbul on Thursday, though the Kremlin chief had never made clear he intended to travel himself.

Asked who would represent Russia at the talks, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: "As soon as the president sees fit, we will announce it."

TRUMP MAY ATTEND

During a speech in Saudi Arabia, Trump said Rubio would attend the talks on Thursday, as well as others. "We'll see if we can get it done," he said.

Kellogg, in an earlier interview on Fox Business Network, said Trump would join the talks in Istanbul if Putin showed up.

"We're hoping President Putin shows up as well, and then President Trump will be there. This could be an absolutely incredible meeting," he said. "We can get peace, I really believe, pretty fast if all three leaders sit down and talk."

Kellogg told Fox Ukraine was willing to accept a "ceasefire in place" in which Ukrainian and Russian forces would each back up 15 kilometres (9 miles), creating a demilitarized zone. International forces would be stationed west of the Dnipro River as a deterrent.

Ukrainian officials have not publicly said what ceasefire terms it may accept. Russia has said it would not accept international forces in Ukraine.

Ukraine's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Newly elected Pope Leo promised Zelenskiy on Monday he would do his best to help bring about a just and lasting peace, a Zelenskiy aide said.

Reuters reported last year that Putin was open to discussing a ceasefirewith Trump but that Moscow ruled out making any major territorial concessions and demanded that Kyiv abandon ambitions to join NATO.

Ukraine has said it is ready for talks but a ceasefire is needed first, a position supported by its European allies.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying Moscow was ready for serious talks on Ukraine but doubted Kyiv's capacity for negotiations.

The agencies quoted him as saying realities "on the ground" should be recognised, including the incorporation of what Moscow calls "new territories" into Russia - a reference to territory in Ukraine that is occupied by Russian forces.

U.S. officials want Russia to agree to a comprehensive 30-day land, air, sea and critical infrastructure ceasefire, a senior U.S. official said.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Moscow names topics for Istanbul talks with Kiev

Moscow wants to discuss a “sustainable settlement” with Kiev during possible upcoming talks in Istanbul, including the recognition of formerly Ukrainian territories as an integral part of Russia, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said.

The senior diplomat spoke with reporters about the proposed meeting on Tuesday, explaining that the issues Moscow would bring up are effectively “the same” it has in the past and largely concern the goals of Russia’s special military operation against Ukraine.

“They have been on the agenda all the time – how to ensure a reliable, sustainable settlement of the situation, first of all, by addressing the very roots of this conflict, resolving issues related to the denazification of the Kiev regime, ensuring recognition of the realities that have developed recently, including the entry of new territories into Russia,” Ryabkov stated.

The deputy minister was apparently referring to Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, as well as Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which were incorporated into Russia in late 2022 following a string of referendums. In the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev, Crimea also opted to break away from Ukraine, joining Russia via a referendum shortly after.

The senior diplomat refrained from making any prognosis on the potential outcome of the proposed talks, but stressed that Moscow is committed to negotiating “seriously and responsibly.”

“It is premature to make any predictions. The question should be addressed to the sponsors of the Kiev regime and Kiev itself. Are they ready to negotiate? We have a strong impression that with the current approach, these figures can be characterized by their inability to negotiate,” Ryabkov said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to resume direct negotiations on Sunday. He insisted that the settlement process must start with talks, and that negotiations could ultimately lead to “some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire.”

The offer has received a mixed reaction from Kiev and its backers, who continued to say that negotiations must be preceded by at least a 30-day truce. The proposal, however, was backed by US President Donald Trump, who urged Kiev to “immediately” accept it. Following Trump’s statements, Ukraine shifted its position, and leader Vladimir Zelensky announced his readiness to meet with the Russian president “personally.”

On Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov refused to comment on the prospect of Putin’s personal participation, confirming only that a Russian delegation will be “waiting” for the Ukrainian side in Istanbul on Thursday. Peskov did not disclose who exactly would represent Russia at the meeting, since he said he had not been authorized to say.

Reuters/RT

We all know what “Kebab” is and means. It is pieces of meat (lamb or beef) spiced, marinated and roasted on a skewer often with vegetables. It is a Middle Eastern delicacy and probably the best example of it is the Turkish variety.

In its original Arab form, it is written and pronounced as “Kabab”. But in English usage it is spelt as “Kebab” which is pretty much how we have known it all this while.

For long the usage of the word was restricted to the culinary world but in 1989 courtesy of Neil Kinnock (now Lord Kinnock) then Labour Party opposition leader in Britain, the word was uploaded into the lexicon of British politics.

In an interview on the BBC programme World at One sometime in 1989, presenter and anchor, Jim Naughtie (appropriately named it appears) constantly tried to bait Kinnock with penetrating questions on what the Labour party planned to do about the ailing British economy under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The Labour Leader who is famous for his fiery temper in addition to his equally famous erudition and gravitas exploded in a foul mounted rant; ‘’Look Jim’’, Kinnock exploded in his unmistakeable Welsh accent, ‘’ they (the ruling Conservative Party then) are making a God awful mess of the economy. I am not going to be bloody kebabbed talking about what the alternatives are. They have buggered off the economy and they should be on the rack not us!’’

Since that tempestuous introduction of the word into the political stream, Kebab is used to mean continuous political pressure directed at a politically exposed person.

Last week as the opposition British conservative party took stock of the mauling at the council polls in which it lost about 470 council seats some of them considered safe, the pressure has been mounting from within on Kemi Badenoch the leader of the party of Nigerian origin. Those at the extreme fringes of the party voiced out that it was time for a leadership change especially as the Tories (another name for the Conservative Party) face the distinct possibility of being relegated to third in the pecking order of British politics after the ruling Labour Party and the rising UK Reform Party which made gains at the expense of both Labour and the Tories in the council elections.

Looking at these developments, I recalled that someone once described the British Parliament as the hottest political blast furnace in the world. Many political observers will readily agree with that description as the British parliament is well known for its tough, often brutal debates on issues especially during the Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQ) which is broadcast live.

Since her taking over the leadership of the Tory party following the crushing defeat inflicted on them at the last general elections, Badenoch have been receiving her dose of ‘’kebabbing” from the critical British media, in the House of Commons and from within her party. From the slant of her public statements one gets the impression that she must have been given a brief by the Brahmins of the party to focus on immigration issues. This is not far-fetched because immigration was one of the key drivers for the Brexit vote and the Tory party which championed it during the administration of Prime Minister David Cameron. And the Tory party hoped to harp on it in order to shore up its flagging fortunes in British politics. Kemi Badenoch as a daughter of Nigerian immigrants would make a befitting poster girl for the Tory party’s crusade on immigration.

In going about her brief, Badenoch had made Nigeria the country of her parents as object of unwarranted negative criticism as if the country was one of her Conservative party constituencies in Britain. Even when she was admonished to concentrate more on events in Britain where her party was reeling from its defeat and desperately grasping at straws for survival, she spurned the advice and continued to slag off Nigeria.

As Badenoch left her flanks open she became an object of constant acerbic attack. Keir Stammer the Prime Minister especially had been having a field day tearing into her at PMQ sessions. The most brutal and compelling of such was when Stammer quipped at Badenoch with a crisp remark laced with unmistakeable contempt; ‘’She seemed to have appointed herself as a guardian of western civilisation’’, effectively reminding her subtly that as a black African woman it was not her place to deeply involve herself into what is essentially a matter that concerns only white folks.

The Tory party rank and file are thus coming to the realisation that she will be a liability in the next general elections.

As I wrote in an earlier article on her, the Tories cannot afford to have Badenoch lead them into what is likely to be another defeat this time more humiliating than the previous one which will probably see the Reform Party finishing above them. For Kemi Badenoch the inevitable moment of truth and reality is at hand as members of the Tory Party plot a leadership change that will see her being swept her out.

Ambition is one of the most defining forces in human affairs—a psychological engine that propels individuals beyond the realm of survival into the arena of creation, disruption, and transformation, and significantly predicts educational attainment, career success, job performance, and income.

At its core, ambition is the refusal to accept the status quo, the internal pressure to stretch personal limits and societal boundaries. In a way, the best way to understand ambition is as the inability to be satisfied with one’s accomplishments. Ambition fuels leadership by pushing individuals to take responsibility, imagine alternatives, and mobilize others toward a vision. Ambition underwritesentrepreneurship as the catalyst for risk-taking, persistence, and the stubborn belief that a better way is not only possible but necessary. Without ambition, innovation stalls; with it, people challenge orthodoxy, break conventions, and solve problems that others resign to fate. Across disciplines, from science to art to politics, history’s breakthroughs are seldom the product of complacency—they are the residue of restless, ambitious minds.

The world, to a large extent, is the output of ambitious people. It is shaped by those who couldn’t sit still, who weren’t content with inherited limitations, and who felt compelled to act on their ideas, no matter how unlikely or unpopular. From the first controlled fire to the latest generative AI models, progress has never been evenly distributed—it has been driven by individuals and groups with an outsized appetite to leave a mark. Ambition transforms dissatisfaction into momentum, and imagination into infrastructure. It explains not just who rises to lead or invent, but why civilizations expand, technologies leap forward, and cultures evolve. While it must be tempered by ethics and collective concern, ambition remains an irreplaceable force in the story of human progress.

EVERYTHING IN MODERATION

And yet, like all powerful traits, ambition is best expressed in moderation. Too little, and individuals drift—untethered from purpose, passive in the face of opportunity. Too much, and ambition can metastasize into obsession, crowding out humility, collaboration, and even moral judgment. When ambition becomes unbounded, it stops serving the individual and begins demanding sacrifice—of relationships, values, and long-term well-being. It can distort self-perception, encouraging people to see themselves not as contributors to a shared cause, but as lone heroes in a zero-sum contest. Teams suffer when ambition eclipses empathy: the pursuit of personal achievement starts to undermine trust, cooperation, and psychological safety. A competitive drive that ignores others’ needs doesn’t just alienate colleagues—it weakens the very foundation of high-functioning organizations.

Unchecked ambition often bleeds into greed, an insatiable hunger not just to succeed, but to dominate. As Gordon Gekko infamously said, “Greed is good”—a provocative mantra for the high-octane world of finance, but a dangerous philosophy when applied indiscriminately. Greed erodes the social contract. It justifies exploitation, tolerates unethical shortcuts, and treats people as a means to an end. In leadership, this can result in toxic cultures, short-term thinking, and spectacular failures. Companies driven solely by ambition without constraint may grow fast, but they often implode faster—toppling under the weight of hubris, burnout, and scandal.

THE WEWORK CASE

Adam Neumann, cofounder and former CEO of WeWork, is a textbook example of how unbridled ambition can lead to spectacular collapse. Neumann started with a compelling vision: to “elevate the world’s consciousness” through a coworking space company that promised to redefine the way people live and work. His charisma and relentless ambition helped WeWork grow at breakneck speed, attracting billions in venture capital and inflating its valuation to nearly $47 billion at its peak. But Neumann’s ambition quickly outpaced operational reality. He expanded into housing (WeLive), education (WeGrow), and other ventures with little strategic coherence. Reports surfaced of erratic behavior, conflicts of interest, and a corporate culture driven more by Neumann’s personal mythos than sound governance.

In 2019, when WeWork attempted to go public, its financial inconsistencies and Neumann’s questionable leadership style came under scrutiny. The IPO failed, Neumann was forced to resign, and the company’s valuation plummeted. His ambition wasn’t the problem in itself—it was that it became delusional, detached from execution, and ultimately corrosive to the company’s sustainability. Neumann exemplifies how visionary drive, without discipline or humility, can become a liability rather than an asset.

In short, the healthiest ambition is grounded in purpose, tempered by self-awareness, and balanced by a commitment to collective success. It lifts everyone, not just the one climbing the fastest.

So, while it’s generally better to have than to lack ambition, here are three proven ways in which an excess of drive or motivation can harm your career and negatively impact others.

1. AMBITION CAN INHIBIT PEOPLE’S PROSOCIAL DRIVE

When the desire to “get ahead” outweighs the instinct to “get along,” ambition can corrode social cohesion. In team environments, overly ambitious individuals may hoard credit, prioritize visibility over contribution, and treat colleagues as competitors rather than collaborators. This undermines trust and psychological safety—two bedrocks of effective teamwork. For example, a rising executive who constantly angles for the spotlight may alienate peers and demoralize subordinates, even if their individual output is impressive. Over time, the cost of such interpersonal friction outweighs the benefits of raw performance. In the long run, organizations thrive not on lone stars but on networks of mutual respect and cooperation—both of which ambition can quietly erode if left unchecked.

2. AMBITION CAN AMPLIFY ANTISOCIAL TRAITS LIKE NARCISSISM, AGGRESSION, AND ENTITLEMENT

While a healthy dose of drive can motivate people to aim high, excessive ambition can inflate the ego and distort moral reasoning. Narcissistic leaders, for instance, often begin their ascent with impressive confidence and vision—but as their ambition grows, so does their sense of superiority and disregard for others. This can lead to toxic behaviors like manipulation, bullying, or a refusal to accept criticism. Take the case of Elizabeth Holmesand Theranos: her ambition to revolutionize healthcare was laudable, but her unwillingness to admit failure or accept limits led to deception and collapse. When ambition aligns with antisocial traits, it stops being a virtue and becomes a liability—both for the individual and the system they’re part of.

3. AMBITION CAN HARM PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, WELLBEING, AND LIFE OUTSIDE WORK

Ambition often demands trade-offs, but when those trade-offs become sacrifices, the consequences can be severe. People driven by intense professional goals may neglect family, friends, and self-care—believing that success justifies the costs. 

This mindset is especially common in high-stakes environments like consulting, finance, or tech startups, where long hours and relentless competition are normalized. Over time, the neglect accumulates: relationships fray, health deteriorates, and a creeping sense of emptiness can set in—even after major achievements. A partner who misses birthdays for business trips or skips vacations for product launches may eventually find the corner office far lonelier than expected. True success requires integration, not imbalance—something ambition doesn’t always encourage.

Research consistently shows that moderate levels of ambition—as opposed to extremely high or low levels—are most beneficial for long-term well-being, work-life balance, and sustainable career success. In the famous words of Seneca, “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.” 

A MORE SUSTAINABLE STRATEGY

Indeed, people with a healthy dose of ambition tend to have clear goals, a sense of purpose, and enough drive to stay engaged and motivated. But unlike the hyper-ambitious, they are less likely to sacrifice personal relationships, sleep, or mental health in pursuit of constant advancement. They are also more likely to value balance, practice self-care, and define success in broader terms than just titles or paychecks. This makes them not only happier individuals but often better colleagues and leaders.

Moderately ambitious individuals are also more likely to stay grounded in reality. They can be ambitious without being delusional, motivated without being obsessive, and confident without being overbearing. As a result, they tend to make better long-term decisions—for themselves and others. Rather than chasing every opportunity or competing with everyone around them, they focus on meaningful progress, both professionally and personally. In a world that often glamorizes extreme ambition, it’s worth remembering that the good life is rarely lived on the edge of burnout—and that sometimes, aiming for enough is the smartest and most sustainable strategy of all.
It is also clear that de-emphasizing ambition—or the importance we give to it—could help in many areas of life, including business. For example:

1. WE TEND TO OVERRATE AMBITION, ESPECIALLY WHEN SELECTING LEADERS

In many organizations, leadership potential is judged through the lens of visibility, assertiveness, and a hunger for advancement—classic signals of ambition. We rarely pause to ask whether that ambition serves the group, or merely the individual. As a result, we often confuse confidence for competence, and ambition for ability. Research consistently shows that traits like humility, integrity, and emotional intelligence are more predictive of effective leadership than raw drive or self-promotion. Yet job interviews and promotion processes still reward those who “lean in,” speak up, and outperform peers—often selecting the loudest rather than the wisest. This opens the door to narcissistic leaders who crave power for its own sake. AsPlato warned, “a person who wants to govern should not.”

2. AMBITION IS FREQUENTLY MISTAKEN FOR TALENT, EVEN IN ROLES THAT DEMAND COMPETENCE OVER CHARISMA

Think of professions where precision, reliability, and expertise are paramount—pilots, surgeons, financial advisers. In these roles, would you rather entrust your life or money to someone highly ambitious, or someone quietly excellent? In reality, you often can’t have both. The most ambitious professionals may focus more on personal brand-building and career climbing than on mastering their craft. Yet our hiring and evaluation systems tend to reward the ambitious candidate: the confident speaker, the impressive résumé, the person with a five-year plan to reach the top. This obsession with upward momentum blinds us to quiet competence. Ironically, many of the best performers are not those obsessed with “being someone,” but with doing something well.

3. FINALLY, AMBITION IS OFTEN DIRECTED AT THE WRONG GOALS—THOSE THAT SERVE EGO MORE THAN OTHERS

Many high achievers are not driven to make things better, but to be seen as better than others. Their goals are status-enhancing, not impact-driven: more power, more wealth, more recognition. This kind of ambition justifies any means—cutting corners, sidelining colleagues, or exploiting loopholes—so long as the outcome advances their image. 

In this light, ambition becomes less a force for progress and more a zero-sum race for supremacy. Organizations and societies pay the price: innovation stalls when energy is spent on internal jockeying, teams fracture under self-serving leadership, and trust erodes. True ambition should be oriented toward contribution, not domination. But too often, we reward the latter and wonder why so many leaders fail to elevate anyone but themselves.

WHEN ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Ambition is a powerful tool, but like any tool, it can become dangerous when misused or overvalued. In a world that equates relentless drive with virtue, we risk promoting the wrong people, building the wrong cultures, and pursuing the wrong goals. We forget that ambition is not inherently noble—it simply magnifies what already exists. In the right hands, it catalyzes innovation, service, and progress. In the wrong ones, it fuels ego, exploitation, and eventual collapse. 

The challenge, then, is not to reject ambition, but to recalibrate our relationship with it: to stop treating it as an end in itself, and start seeing it as a means to something greater. This requires a collective shift in how we define success—not as the ability to outshine others, but as the capacity to uplift them. We need to stop conflating ambition with leadership potential, charisma with competence, and visibility with value. It’s time to reward the quietly excellent, the others-focused, and the impact-driven. The future will not belong to those who climb the fastest, but to those who climb with purpose—and bring others with them. As my colleague and friend Amy Edmondson and I have argued, ambition may drive history, but only wisdom, humility, and integrity ensure that it drives us somewhere worth going.

Fast Company