Transcription
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Hello and welcome to First Post Vantage with me H Corsoya. Let's get started. The weekend is upon us. So is Mr. President's birthday. And if Mr. President is to be believed, so is the deal. We can only hope. It would make for quite a birthday gift, wouldn't it?
Speaking of signing the this deal, US Vice President JD Vans may be heading to Europe to do the honors, which raises an obvious question. Wasn't Pakistan supposed to be the great mediator here? So why isn't the signing in Islamabad? Trust Pakistan to fumble even the photo op.
And while we're on the subject of Europe, its moral grandstanding has run into a very familiar problem. Facts. India's external affairs minister just delivered a master class on the art of calling out hypocrisy. The message was simple. If you're going to lecture the world, don't be surprised when the world starts grading your paper.
Also tonight, Chile takes center stage in the India China trade tussle. Chilies, stay tuned for that one. And what exactly is servant leadership? I'll tell you in just a bit. All that and more lined up, but first the headlines.
India summons the top US envoy again over American attacks on ships off Oman's coast. The strikes killed three Indians. The American diplomat was summoned for the second time in two days. India is one of the largest contributors of sailors on merchant shipping worldwide.
Syrian President Emma al- Shar says Damascus has no intention of intervening in Lebanon. Donald Trump had suggested Syria might be willing to do so. This comes as Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah continue to trade blows in Lebanon despite a conditional ceasefire.
French President Emanuel Macron will host Italy's Georgia Maloney on the 25th of June. It will be their first bilateral summit. Relations have not always been smooth between Macro and Maloney. Though in June last year, the two leaders had sought to ease tensions. During a long one-on-one meeting in Rome, authorities in Ethiopia's Traay region deny claims that they were planning to restart the civil war. They have accused the federal government of looking for an excuse. Between 2020 and 2022, Train forces fought against federal troops. The war had ended with an uneasy peace deal.
And Elon Musk Space X began its first day as a public company on Wall Street. This comes after the biggest initial public offering in history. The blockbuster operation raised more than $75 billion. It is expected to make Musk the world's first trillionaire.
Most people celebrate their birthday with candles and cakes. Trump, meanwhile, appears to be shopping for something bigger, a peace deal. He turns 80 this weekend. And this year, he is checking whether he can add West Asia peacemaker to his birthday card.
Donald Trump spent Thursday treating geopolitics like a light switch. In the morning, the US president was threatening to invade Iran's Kar Island, its oil exporting hub. He vowed more strikes on Thran. Hours later though, he flipped. Trump proclaimed that he has clinched a great deal to end this war. According to him, the deal will be signed in Europe by this weekend. Vice President JD Vance will be there. He said the Islamic Republic will never get a nuclear weapon and that Iran Supreme Leader Moshtabaki has approved it.
>> On Iran, how confident are you that there will be a signing this weekend? Because you have come close to sealing a deal, but at the last minute it has fallen apart and It'll be soon. Maybe this weekend.
>> And has the Supreme Leader approved this deal? Sir,
>> I understand the answer is yes.
If there was an Olympic event for changing the tone of a geopolitical crisis, Donald Trump would get the gold medal. But the reality in this case is a bit more complex. Iran seems to have missed the memo. It says no final decision to end the war has yet been reached. But the country's foreign minister Basaraki today said that the United States and Iran have never been closer to a deal.
Today, Thran's mayor news agency did release details of a 14-point draft peace plan. The deal, if agreed upon by both sides, will include the following: a permanent and immediate sessation of hostilities on all fronts. This will also include Lebanon, something Israel is averse to. The deal will set a 60-day negotiation period to reach a deal over Thran's nuclear program. It will also look into securing the release of 24 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Iran demands that the amount should be made available before the 60-day negotiations start. Iran will also maintain the right to enrich uranium and it will not seed control of the straight of moose the critical waterway that before the war used to carry around a fifth of the world's oil and gas.
Now no points have been made public from Washington's side today. Trump said whatever Iran has laid out in the deal is false. He warned Iran to get their act together. A White House official later said that Iran has agreed to dismantle its nuclear program under this deal.
If a real deal does emerge, a verifiable agreement that ends Iran's nuclear ambitions, it would be a big win for Washington. It would also end a war that has rocked West Asia for months, triggered an energy crisis and sent global inflation surging. And it would give Trump a way out of a war that was supposed to just last a few weeks when he launched it in February, but is now dragged deep into summer, bleeding his domestic approval ratings. That's the upside, a genuine diplomatic triumph. But to be honest, he's repeatedly said that the deal is around the corner nearly 40 times. This week was particularly unsteady. While a ceasefire was in place, there was constant tit fortat attacks from Iran and America. As a result, yesterday shut the straight of again and Gulf states came under the line of fire again.
And if an agreement is reached, Trump will be judged against a very specific benchmark. The Iran nuclear deal negotiated under former US President Barack Obama in 2015, which was exhaustively detailed. internationally endorsed and verifiably structured. Trump tore it up in 2018 even though his own administration had certified Iran was in compliance. And ultimately, he will owe the world an answer to a very simple question. Has his war, which has killed 13 American service members, destroyed millions in military hardware, and pushed the global economy into crisis, left Americans safer?
There's also another question that looms over the peace deal. Will Israel comply? Trump launched the war in partnership with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But the duo seem to have diverged opinions in recent weeks. According to reports, Trump has repeatedly warned Netanyahu against derailing the peace talks. The two leaders spoke again yesterday. An Israeli readout did not explicitly criticize Trump, but implied that the agreement would not satisfy Tel Aviv's interests. Netanyahu expressed appreciation for Trump's commitments but added that Israel is not a party to the deal. Netanyahu also said that he was caught off guard as Telawi was not given a heads up before Trump's announcement of the deal.
So here's where things stand right now. The negotiations are moving. Whether they're moving towards a deal or towards another Trump style announcement is the question right now. Trump seems determined to turn diplomacy into a surprise party. Iran has not RSVPd yet. So, will Donald Trump be able to gift himself a peace deal this weekend? Or is he trying to put a bow on a box that is still empty?
So, Trump says the war in Iran is over. In fact, US Vice President JD Vance could attend a signing ceremony in Europe in the coming days. It is looking all rosy. Quick question. If peace is being signed in Europe, where is the great mediator Pakistan in all of this? After all, it wasn't so long ago that Islamabad was projecting itself as the main peace broker, the key peacemaker between the United States and Iran. Islamabad even held talks, which of course failed as we saw later. But that aside, there was even early optimism that Pakistan could be a bridge between the two sides. Fast forward to today, the center of gravity has completely shifted. Talks have moved towards other regional players like Qatar and now final talks may take place in Europe not Islamabad. So what happened? Let me tell you what happened. Pakistan overpromised and as usual underdelivered. Allow me to explain.
Pakistan's bid-to-play peace mediator collapsed amid what diplomats would call a trust issue and what everyone else might call a fullblown credibility gap. Add in allegations of bias towards Washington, limited leverage in the talks and a ceasefire that didn't even make it through the warm-up. The result was predictable. Talks fell apart and military posturing picked up where Pakistan's diplomacy fell off. That breakdown had a few classic ingredients. First, the issue of neutrality. Was Pakistan ever the right country for the job? The waring parties certainly don't think so. Iranian officials and state media have openly asked if Pakistan was mediating or just, and I'm quoting here, passing messages from Washington with a smile. In late April, Iranian lawmaker Ibrahim Razai said Pakistan, as I'm quoting again, not a suitable intermediary. He accused Pakistan of being partial, aligning with American interests. In a post onx, he also pointed to instances where Islamabad failed to publicly challenge Washington even when commitments were not met, including on issues such as Lebanon and frozen assets. He said, and I quote, "They are unwilling to tell the world that America first accepted Pakistan's proposal, but then went back on its word. A mediator must be impartial, not always leaning to one side." Theran pointed to a US-backed framework that from their perspective managed to address everyone except Iran's core demands like frozen assets, shipping restrictions, issues that have now become central to the talks. Talk about not reading the room, right?
Then came the promises that didn't quite survive contact with reality. Assurances were made. Expectations were set. And somewhere along the line, delivery got lost in translation, including hopes around easing military pressure near the straight of Hormuz that never actually showed up. The result, a quick realization in Thran of whether Islamabad was a mediator or was it just thinking about itself.
It wasn't just Iran that had questions about Pakistan's role. Several US lawmakers and officials questioned whether Pakistan could really act as a neutral mediator in the crisis. According to a report by CBS on the 11th of May, Pakistan allowed Iranian military aircraft to park on its airfields, effectively shielding them from US air strikes. In response to the report, US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said that if this reporting is accurate, it would necessitate a complete re-evaluation of Pakistan's role in the talks.
Then came the question of Israel. Islamabazis flatly rejected Trump's condition to join the Abraham Accords as part of any broader regional peace framework with Iran because joining the Abraham Accords and recognizing Israel would for Pakistan require more than just diplomacy. It would mean rewriting official state documents. Right now Pakistan's passport clearly states this passport is valid for all countries of the world except Israel. For Pakistan, taking credit for playing peacemaker was easy. But walking the talk turned out to be a whole different ballgame.
Forget world peace. Islamabad is struggling to achieve domestic stability. The Pakistani government is expected to raise revenue, cut spending and try to keep fiscal deficit under control. In plain English, more pressure on business, more pressure on taxpayers, more pressure on the middle class. Pakistan depends heavily on Gulf energy imports, remittances and financial support from the region. So when oil prices rise, Islamabad feels it quickly. In fact, the war it was trying to mediate has already added new pressure to inflation and the broader economic picture remains extremely fragile. Did you know just over 1% of Pakistanis filed returns showing taxable income and just 7.7% of adults hold a debit or a credit card. Pakistan is also a country at war with itself as it battles groups like the Taliban Pakistan the Islamic State and the Baloistan Liberation Army. So as the United States and Iran move away from Pakistan, Islamabad should now focus on how to keep peace at home. Maybe that should be the next mission for Trump's so-called favorite field marshal Assamunir.
The war to end all wars. That was the name given to World War I. It transformed the face of Europe. It collapsed empires and it gave rise to Nazi Germany. World War I lasted exactly 1,568 days. Yesterday, this benchmark was shattered because the war in Ukraine has now dragged on for longer than World War I. What was supposed to be Russia's special military operation has turned into a meat grinder. And do you know what's worse? Neither side is willing to throw in the towel. While Ukraine is buying jets and drones, Russia is eyeing supersonic cruise missiles like the made in India Bramos. Our next report tells you more.
This is the latest update from the Western Front.
>> 1,568 days. That's how long World War I lasted.
>> From August 1914 to November 1918, Europe witnessed some of its most brutal fighting. From trench warfare to poisonous gas, European powers left no stone unturned to conquer the battlefield. World War I saw the rise of a modern industrialized Europe. But it also saw the collapse of powers and the rise of Nazi Germany. World War I was called the benchmark for modern military endurance. As of this week, that tag no longer applies because the war in Ukraine has officially surpassed World War I. At 1,569 days of fighting, the Ukraine war has gone on for longer than World War I. When the Russian invasion began in February 2022, the Kremlin called it a special military operation. That same special operation has outlasted World War I. And as of today, the war in Ukraine is only getting more brutal. Because just like World War I, the Ukraine war is being fought in the trenches. Except this time, we are seeing the use of drones and artificial intelligence at a scale never witnessed before.
Now, when a war stretches longer than World War I, the numbers cease to be mere data points. They become a testament to the horrors of war endured by humans and economies. Just look at the numbers in Ukraine. Close to 2 million people, both civilians and combatants, have already been killed. Direct infrastructure damage in Ukraine stands at almost $200 billion dollars. Thousands of tanks and military equipment have been destroyed. They lie shattered across the agricultural fields of Ukraine. Then there's unexloded artillery shells and bombs which will take decades to remove. Not to mention the thousands of kilometers of drone fiber optic cables that have been cast over Ukrainian cities. And if it is not just Ukrainians and Russians who are paying the bill, the war in Ukraine is estimated to have costed the global economy $2 trillion for people living in Europe and North America. This war has meant higher taxes because Western governments continue to give blank checks to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia's economy has shrunk by almost 6%. Most European firms have already left Russia, leaving Moscow heavily dependent on China to prop its economy.
But here's what's even more worrying. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are willing to sit at the negotiating table. In the last few months, Kiev has signed major weapons deals with European countries. These include fighter jet deals with France and Sweden, longrange cruise missiles with the UK, and high-end missile interceptors from the US. Meanwhile, Russia too has been on the lookout for weapons despite being a military superpower. As per reports, the Russian Navy and Russian army are looking to buy the Bramos supersonic cruise missile from India. Now the Brahmos is a joint venture between India and Russia. However, the majority stake is owned by New Delhi. Russian media reports suggest Russian forces are looking to procure the missile for their use. For decades, Russia exported its weapons to India, but the tables are slowly turning. BRAMOS Aerospace has officially stated that it has the capacity to meet Moscow's needs. As supply chains thin out, both Ukraine and Russia are looking for reliable partners.
When World War I finally ended, it was because one side had completely exhausted its manpower, its resources, and its economy.
>> Today, in 2026, that script is playing out again. Only this time, artificial intelligence and high-tech manufacturing seem to be changing the game. Clearly, the world hasn't learned any lessons from the past. It has only automated them.
Now, let's turn to Finland. India's external affairs minister Dr. SJ Shanka is in the Nordic country. He is attending an annual security dialogue on the invite of Finland's president. At the summit, Dr. Shash Shankar was invited to speak at a panel. The topic of discussion was emerging powers and new geopolitical competition. Seems very straightforward. India is an emerging power and the world is witnessing increasing geopolitical competition. So having India's voice makes sense. But as always, a European journalist when given a mic got the uncontrollable itch to lecture India. The panel was moderated by Gideon Rakman, the chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times. And Mr. Rakman decided to lay a moral trap for India's external affairs minister. During this panel discussion, Rakman asked why India was buying Russian oil and why India was soft on Russia.
Now if it were any other diplomat you would expect a long defensive bureaucratic answer but that is not Dr. Shanka's style. Not only did he take the question in stride he ate it out of the stadium. Listen to this.
>> I buy oil. I buy oil based on cost and availability. So at that point of time much of the oil available on the market was Russia. uh because Europeans were essentially buying up the Middle East oil. Uh so which was our traditional supply since you spoke about moral ambiguity. I would say this you know no European country has been attacked with Indian weapons. I wish I could say that for European weapons India.
>> No European country has been attacked with Indian weapons. I wish I could say that for Europeans visav India.
That was Jes's response. It wasn't lecturing. It didn't come from a place of for superiority and it certainly did not come from a place of arrogance. If anything, it reflects today's reality. Yes, India buys oil from Russia because India has 1.4 billion people and its energy needs have to be met. But what about Europe? Why do they still buy gas from Russia? And what about United States? Why does Washington still buy uranium from Moscow to power its nuclear reactors? Why is it that when the lecture is about buying from Russia, the fingers are only pointed at India? Well, today India's foreign minister completely stripped Europe of its self-appointed moral roads. But it wasn't just some witty stab at Western hypocrisy. It was an undeniable historic truth. For decades, the United States and Europe have armed Pakistan with fighter jets, tanks, bombs, assault rifles, and radars. And Pakistan has used these weapons repeatedly against India. From the 1965 war to the 1971 war to the 1999 Cargill war, Western weapons sold to Pakistan has all have always been used against India. And despite these European weapons being used to put Indian lives at risk, New Delhi has never once thrown a fit and behave like an immature teenager because this is what geopolitics politics is about. Everyone is working towards their national interests. Europe was doing that for decades. But they have a problem when India does it.
Let me tell you more about European hypocrisy. In the last 3 years, Europe has increased its imports of refined crude oil from India. In 2021, Europe purchased 11.8 metric tons of refined crude. By 2024, that number shot up to 26 million metric tonses. So, Europe essentially more than doubled its refined crude imports from India. Where does Europe think India gets all this oil from? You guessed it, Russia. So Europe was essentially buying oil that India first bought from Russia, refined it and sold it to Europe.
Now this is not the first time that Dr. SJ Shanka outrightly called out Europe's hypocrisy. In fact, India has repeatedly slammed Europe's moral high positioning. Who can forget the Barislava forum in 2022? When asked about purchasing Russian oil for the first time by European media, the Indian minister hit them with the classic line.
>> Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems.
There was no looking back after that. The world of 2026 is no longer unipolar. There is no such thing as Western hedgemony. If Europe wants to discuss trade partnerships and agreements with India, they're more than welcome to do it. But they must keep their moral lecturing at home and treat India as an equal, not as a subordinate.
One year after Air India flight A171 crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, killing a total of 260 people, families of the victims gathered at the crash site to remember their loved ones and renew calls for answers. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner was on route to London Gatwick when it crashed into a medical college hostel, becoming the deadliest aviation disaster in a decade. The tragedy claimed the lives of 241 people on board along with 19 people on the ground. Only one person survived. While a preliminary report was released last year, a full investigation report is awaited as critical questions remain unanswered. So where do things stand a year after the tragedy? Our next report tells you.
Today marks one year since the deadly AirIndindia Boeing crash killed 260 people in a densely populated suburb of Ahmedabad.
>> Families of those killed in the plane crash gathered at the site to mark the anniversary of the disaster, still awaiting answers about its cause. A woman was seen weeping as she embraced a framed picture of her deceased relatives. Another family scattered rose petals at the ruins of the hostel in honor of their son.
On the 12th of June 2025, flight AI71 and Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner was on route to London Gatwick. But just moments after takeoff, it crashed into a medical college hostel in the residential area of Meghani Nagar near the international airport on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. According to flight tracking website Flight Radar 24, the plane's final signal was received seconds after takeoff at 1:38 p.m. local time. It had reached an altitude of 625 ft before crashing just outside the airport. It was the deadliest air disaster in a decade. It's very very hard the aircraft. craft had issued a Mayday alert to air traffic control just before all communication ceased. Of the 242 people on board, all but one passenger were killed. They included 169 Indian nationals and 52 British nationals. A total of 260 people died including 19 people on the ground who were killed when the aircraft crashed into the hostel. Another 67 people on the ground were injured. The sole survivor on board Vishvashkumar Romesh is a British national whose brother was killed in the crash. Romesh survived but the impact of the tragedy did not end that day. The trauma of the crash continues to affect him physically, psychologically and financially. It was a trauma shared by many others as well.
On Friday, Civil Aviation Minister K Ram Mohan Naidu said the investigation continues with diligence and professionalism in accordance with established national and international procedures. The civil aviation minister's comments also come against the backdrop of expectations that the aircraft accident investigation bureau AIB may come out with an interim update on the probe into the accident. Authorities are expected to issue an interim report in the coming days. Even though a year has passed, fragments of bags, clothes, and a melted shoe lay half buried in the charred earth at the site alongside dead trees with burnt trunks.
As required by international law, the AIB had published a preliminary report a month after the disaster. That 15-page document said the fuel supply to the jet's engine was cut off moments before impact, raising questions about possible pilot error. It also published a conversation between the captain and his co-pilot about the fuel supply being cut off. Two brief sentences that sparked wild theories. The report was met with strong criticism. It did not say why the fuel switches were turned off, whether it was the fault of a pilot or a result of a malfunction. A year from the tragedy, families of the victims are still waiting, waiting for answers and still waiting for some closure.
First it was rice, now it's chili. China has rejected shipments of Indian chili and suspended three Indian exporters saying that the consignments contained excessive levels of a chemical called methameophos that is a pesticide which is not approved for use by growers in India. According to reports, Beijing says the chemical was detected at levels high enough to raise food safety concerns. But this is not an isolated incident. Just last month, China rejected 70 shipments of Indian non-basmati rice. Chinese importers claimed the problem was GMO contamination. Indian exporters had denied the allegation and some even accused China of using food safety rules as a tool in a trade war. So is China simply enforcing its standards or is there something else going on here?
Because India is not just any exporter. It is the world's largest exporter of chili and also the world's largest exporter of rice. China meanwhile is one of the biggest buyers of Indian chili. India's popular tja variety is particularly in demand. In the last financial year alone, India has exported about 2.36 lakh tons of chili to China. That's the highest level ever recorded. That was also a 31% increase over the previous year. So it's not like China suddenly discovered Indian chili. It has been buying it aggressively. In fact, China accounts for more than onethird of India's red chili exports. Which also means that this is not a small commercial dispute. It affects Indian farmers, Indian exporters, the entire supply chain.
Now, while some say that Beijing has been increasingly strict about food safety requirements, including pesticide residues and GMO regul regulations, other reports have another theory. They say that China took advantage of lower prices and bought Indian chilies in large quantities over the last two years. That way, it was able to build up significant inventory. But now the situation has changed. Indian chili prices have risen following a smaller crop and Chinese demand has softened partly because those existing stockpiles exist. If that's true, one might ask, is this really about food safety? Because here's the kicker. According to reports, the rejected consignments of chilies have also not been returned. Let me repeat that. The rejected chilies have not been returned. Instead, Chinese importers and Indian exporters reportedly negotiating discounts on its price. So, if the product is truly unsafe, why negotiate the price? Why not reject it outright and send it back? That's what exporters are now asking? Some say that quality concerns are being used as leverage at a time when buyers want lower prices. So, this isn't just about Chile. It is also about who holds the upper hand in the bilateral trade relationship.
You see, this is not the first time Indian exporters have faced such problems. Exporters have long complained about market access issues in China. The timing is also interesting. India's trade deficit with China has expanded dramatically over the years. It has gone from about $ 37 billion a decade ago to well over hundred billion today. At the same time, India continues to depend on China for a large share of its imports with many Indian exporters still seeing China as a crucial market. Which brings us back to today. Is China protecting its consumers or protecting its bargaining power? After all, the Chilies are still in China, but it's the price that's giving Beijing the heartburn.
I told you Trump turns 80 this weekend. His birthday is on the 14th of June. His doctors insist he is in excellent health, strong heart, strong lungs, and perfect cognitive test score. Yet questions about the oldest serving US president refused to go away. From viral video showing him with his eyes closed during meetings to debates over bruised hands, swollen ankles, and unexplained medical details, Trump's health remains under intense scrutiny. This debate is no longer just about medical reports. It is about public confidence as well. Here's our report.
On Sunday, June 14, US President Donald Trump turns 80. It's a milestone birthday that practically comes with its own spotlight. And as always with the US president, attention tends to stick harder than confetti. For months now, discussions have focused on the US president's health. He has been caught with his eyes closed during cabinet meetings. prompting the internet to diagnose everything from power to pulse rate. The clips made their way to a congressional hearing where Secretary of State Marco Rubio was testifying. He was asked about why Trump appears to sleep during important meetings. And here's what he said.
>> Have you been at more than one meeting where President Trump has fallen asleep?
>> That's false. That's false. I've never seen him fall asleep. On the contrary, the guy doesn't sleep, which is a big problem cuz he calls me at 2:00 in the morning, he calls me at 5:00 in the morning, and you know, I like to sleep a little bit. Maybe not 12 hours or at least 6. So, he works. The other day he was at the Oval Office and 12:30 p.m. at 12:30 a.m. I don't know what you're talking about.
Which prompts an important question. Is Trump healthy enough to run a country? In recent public check-ins and routine medical updates released over time, there's been the familiar message often seen with high-profile political figures. No dramatic revelations, just the usual mix of age related monitoring, fitness for public activity notes, and one of the most popular phrase doctors use, doing fine. On May 29th, Trump's physician, Dr. Shaun Barabella released a medical assessment. The verdict, excellent health, strong heart, strong lungs, sharp mind. He scored a perfect 30 out of 30 on a cognitive test designed to screen for dementia and Alzheimer's. Trump gained 14 lbs since his last exam. He now weighs 238 lb or around 108 kg at 6'3 in height. Technically near the threshold of clinical obesity. The report also mentions his aspirin use. Trump takes highdose aspirin more than his doctors recommend to protect against heart attacks and strokes. His doctors have now told him to reduce the dose.
Speculations about Trump's health emerged last year when bruises were spotted on his hands and his ankles were pictured swollen. When the images became viral, the White House said it's due to frequent handshakes. This is consistent with minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin, which is taken as part of a standard cardiovascular prevention regimen. This is a well-known and benign side effect of aspirin therapy. and the president remains in excellent health which I think all of you witness on a daily basis here.
It was disclosed that he has chronic venuous insufficiency, a condition where veins struggle to push blood back to the heart. This year his doctors noted improvement but also noted swelling. There are some loopholes in the report. Doctors say the report misses things. One cardiologist noted, "The claim that Trump has the cardiac age of a younger man isn't a real diagnostic finding. It's a line, not a conclusion." Few also question why someone with a healthy heart who is apparently at low risk for a stroke or other vascular event needs to be on aspirin.
Now, before you say this is just Trump bashing Zoom out, we are not aiming at his health. The United States has no maximum age for elected officials, but 79% of Americans, nearly 8 in 10, support age limits for elected officials, according to Pew Research. At 80, he's the oldest serving US president. On a global scale, 16 out of the world's 186 leaders are older than Trump. For reference, Cameroon's president is 93. He's been in power for 44 years, longer than some of his fellow leaders have been alive. Saudi Arabia King Salman bin Abdullah Aziz al-Saud is 90. So Trump is not an outlier globally and a birth certificate is definitely not a performance review. But can Donald Trump stand in a room and command attention at 80? He clearly can. His doctors say he's fit for service, but it's mental health where the line begins to blur. Recent polling shows that Americans are increasingly concerned about the state of the president's health. About 59% of Americans say they don't think Trump has the mental acuity to serve in office effectively. Another poll says that 61% of Americans believe that the president has become erratic with age. And somewhere in that gap between a perfect cognitive score and appearing to sleep during meetings lies the real question. Not whether Trump is healthy enough to run a country, but whether the people of his country trust that he can.
Now, let's turn to the FIFA 2026 men's football world cup. The tournament has officially begun. The opening match was played yesterday. Go host Mexico won their match against South Africa. The final score was 2-0. But I will tell you about those 90 minutes later. First, let me tell you about the opening ceremony. Because if you had turned on your television or were watching on your mobile, you were expecting a traditional football tournament. Instead, you were greeted by a colorful, lively, and radiant music festival.
You see, the opening match of the tournament was played at the iconic Estario Aztec, a Mexico City in Mexico City, pardon me. As the name suggests, it is a proud tribute to Mexico's rich Aztec heritage. This stadium is where Brazilian star Pelle F first lifted the World Cup in 1970. It is also where Argentina's Diego Maradona executed the hand of God in 1986. Clearly, the stadium is not just about Mexico's pride. It has its own place in football history. But the Astica didn't get to host a unified opening ceremony. It only hosted what we can call the first installment. You see, we have three co co-hosts this World Cup. Canada, the United States, and Mexico. And apparently each of them wanted their own opening ceremonies. So what we saw on the pitch yesterday was Mexico's version. And it was everything you would expect. The ceremony was highly energetic, deeply colorful, and full of Hispanic talent. Let's start with who stole the spotlight. Undoubtedly, it was Shakira. Dressed in a neon clad outfit, the Colombian queen performed this World Cup's official song, and she injected an absolute electric pulse into the crowd. But Shakira wasn't the only big star to take stage. Hollywood sensation Salah was handpicked to deliver the opening address, and she delivered a speech that reminded everyone of Mexico's rich football heritage. The VIP boxes, too, were packed. Mexico's president Claudia Shinbomb was in attendance and her reaction to Mexico scoring the first goal certainly stole the show.
Meanwhile, outside the stadium, the energy was loud and vibrant. Tens of thousands of Mexican fans gathered to watch the football game together.
>> It's an indescribable feeling. The truth is, we've been preparing for this World Cup for 4 years, ever since the last one. And honestly, it gives me the chills just thinking about hearing the Mexican national anthem.
So, Mexico City looked like a vibrant orchestra. Neighborhoods had turned into a sea of green, white, and red. It looked like the legendary Mexican fiesta spirit had gripped the nation. But despite the moments of loud music, dancing, and euphoria, there were moments of a few glaring fouls. And I'm not talking about the ones on the field. Just a few blocks away from the stadium, Mexican police were battling patrol bombs. Hundreds of teachers took to the streets demanding better pay and work conditions. And just a few hours into the protest, clashes erupted. Take a look. This was a stark yet uncomfortable reminder. The glittering football carnival remains isolated from local strife.
Meanwhile, inside the stadium, the opening ceremony also had its fair share of hiccups. First, the ceremony failed to start on time. Fans and broadcasters were left perplexed. How can a multi-million dollar ceremony hosted at an international stage be late? And then there were the Laboos. For those of you who may not know, a Labu is a pointyeared, colorful monsteride doll. It was created by an artist from Hong Kong, and it has taken pop culture by storm. Now, normally these Laboo dolls are the size of your palm. They're used as keychains or toys, but for the World Cup's opening ceremony, someone got inspiration from the movie, "Honey, I blew up the Kid." A classic Hollywood film where a scientist's father enlarges his toddler into a giant because that's what we got at the opening ceremony. Two six- foot tall furry bucktooth leubus prancing around on the battle on the football field. Pardon me. That was a major red card and not the only one of the night.
Which brings me to the opener. Co-host Mexico secured a thunderous victory over South Africa. The final score, as I mentioned earlier, was 2-0. But those 90 minutes were quite rough and chaotic. Three players were ejected from the game. They were all given red cards in the second half for foul play. South Africa were eventually reduced to nine players and for that the night has gone down in history books setting a record for the most red cards handed out in a World Cup opener. Clearly the inaugural ceremony has done its job well. It has reignited interest in the World Cup. After all those controversies of visa troubles and costly tickets in the United States, it looks like all you needed was to party, play, and protest Mexico style to restore faith in this beautiful game.
Power is seductive. That's not my opinion. That's neuroscience. The moment people get authority, studies show they start losing empathy. They listen less. They shout more. They begin slowly and quietly to stop caring about the room. And for years, we've built the entire corporate world on this foundation. Power remains concentrated at the top. Is there an alternative? I thought you'd never ask. Meet servant leadership. It argues that a leader's job is not to collect applause. It's to create conditions for others to succeed. Now, before you roll your eyes, it does not mean being a pushover. And it certainly doesn't mean serving coffee to the entire office. It means serving a purpose larger than your ego. That's a harder ask than it sounds because most leadership systems are built on one foundational assumption. The person at the top knows best. The hierarchy exists to enforce that. But a servant leader understands a simple truth. People don't grow because someone commands them to. They grow because someone believes in them enough.
The term was coined by Robert Greenleaf, a 20th century researcher who spent decades working at a telephone company, watching managers manage their teams and wondering why so little of it actually worked. What he realized was uncomfortable. Traditional leadership, he argued, is fundamentally oriented around one thing. The leader's desire for power. The hierarchy flatters the person at the top. Everyone else exists to execute. Green leaf opposed and proposed the opposite here. The servant leader asks a different first question. Not how do I lead, but how does my leadership lift others? The progression to authority comes because of service, not before it. It sounds idealistic. It turns out it's just good strategy. I have evidence. Toyota, the automobile company that reached an almost $300 billion valuation, didn't do it by giving executives more control. It did it by giving factory workers the power to stop the entire production line the moment they spotted a problem. Management's job was to support the workers, not dictate them. The result, continuous improvement driven from the ground up, not from the top down.
Now look at the New York Knicks. On Wednesday, they made the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history. It's a premier professional basketball league. Their comeback from a 29point deficit wasn't the story of one hero. It was the story of players accepting roles, trusting teammates choosing the group success over personal statistics. This time, servant leadership came in the form of Jersey. And then there's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who could have used the civil rights movement to build a personal legacy. Instead, he used his platform to help others. He chose nonviolence not because it was safe, but because it served the movement's larger purpose. He led by serving. He changed history by refusing to make it about himself.
Now, servant leadership is not a magic solution. Let's be honest, most leaders have zero training in this model. Adopting it requires genuine cultural change and organizations are notoriously resistant to that. In a crisis, distributed decision-m can be dangerously slow. And handing employees real responsibility only works if you've built the environment to support it. Get that wrong and you've just created a very elegant way to overwhelm your own team. The philosophy has limits like all philosophies do. But the alternative, the command and control model, the superhero CEO, the leader who sees employees as instruments, has its own costs, just quieter ones, disengagement, resentment, talent that leaves, potential that never gets unlocked. The corporate world will keep celebrating its superheroes. the ones with the bold vision statements, the TED talk voice, the one on the Forbes cover. But the leaders who actually build something lasting, they're usually somewhere else entirely in the room, not on the stage, asking questions, not giving answers, serving the mission, not feeding the myth. The best leaders aren't the ones everyone's looking at. They're the ones making sure everyone else has what they need to succeed. Because as the saying goes, if you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go far, go together.
The White House's social media page is fully in its meme era under Donald Trump. Its latest Instagram post shows Trump under a banner reading patriotic summer with a caption, "America maxing." Now, what does that even mean? Apparently, the internet has some ideas. One user joked if by America maxing they mean Israel maxing. Another said it can mean Epstein maxing. Take a look.
Heat. Heat. our Special series the champion code continues here on first post. Be sure to catch episode 2 this weekend. The women's world cup is here and our sports editor Rupa Ramani sat down with a fearless nextgen cricketer Shrianka Patil for a candid chat. India scripted history by winning their first world cup just last year. It was an emotional victory for every single member of that Indian cricket squad. The women have now embarked on a journey to try and double it by clinching the T20 World Cup. On episode 2 of the Champion Court, we speak to one of the champions in the making of India's bold new generation, Srianka Pat.
How does that feel for you when you say you're an Indian cricketer?
As a kid I've always dreamed of I enjoy people shouting. After the first year I played for RCB everyone they're like Shankapad Shankarat Shank. Suddenly I felt like Virat Kohli. Ellis Perry comes in and she took 2 minutes she's like we got this girl. So she kind of suddenly changed the vibe. All put together, it's like damaka walla vibe we have in the dressing room. We just love dancing. We love singing. We love pulling each other's legs. I can't see myself playing in an empty stadium. I don't know. I've never imagined doing that. I've always imagined 20,000 people watching me play.
>> How you would define Indian women's cricket today.
>> We win, we lose, we are one team. So that's a great quality of this team. We should never forget that bowlers win games. Bumbra has done it day in and day out. Is it true that you started off as a as a fast?
Yeah. And then shifted. Why? How?
>> I started with pace, then I turned into a leg spinner, then a wicket keeper.
Nothing worked.
>> What do you expect this time around with the T20 World Cup? That of course that you're going to be part of. I mean, now that we've got the taste of lifting the trophy in 2025 when Harry D did that, I'm just super excited to go to England and uh get the trophy.
And now it's time for Vantage Shorts, images that tell a story. In Mexico, violent anti-government protests erupted as the FIFA World Cup kicked off. In the United States, a giant tornado dominated the skyline, sweeping across fields in Illinois. And in China, an AI powered snack making robot take center stage at an expo.
Finally, taking you back in history, on this day in 1964, Nelson Mandela was jailed for life. This is after opposing the South Africa's apathide government. He spent 27 years in prison before being released in 1990. His freedom became a turning point in South Africa's fight for democracy. Mandela later became the nation's first post-apathide president. Leaving you on that note. Thank you so much for watching. See you next week.
We want animals. It's It's getting smaller. It's dying. Yep. All right. Got it.