- Global Recap
- Posts
- Partial internet cut
Partial internet cut

Hi Global Recap readers,
The topic of internet censorship is a sensitive one—with even many democratic countries applying it to varying degrees. For example:
🇮🇳 India has implemented internet shutdowns during protests and major exams, citing public safety and the need to curb misinformation.
🇰🇷 South Korea, despite being a liberal democracy, allows the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) to block websites related to North Korea, pornography, gambling, and content deemed harmful to public order, such as cyberbullying.
So, does this mean what Russia is doing is justified? Or do these measures, even in democracies, reflect a pattern of government overreach?
🇷🇺 RUSSIA
Victory Day: Internet Shutdown

As Putin, how do you make sure your planned parade goes smoothly? Cut off parts of the internet.
In fact, that’s what’s happening on May 9.
Kremlin’s Directive
The Kremlin has ordered “targeted internet restrictions” designed to ensure the parade remains untainted by unwanted opinions.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared, “These are not disruptions, but restrictions for obvious reasons.”
The policy kicks in while top foreign leaders gather in Moscow.
Immediate Impact
Independent reports indicate that Moscow residents have already been facing connectivity issues since May 5.
Local media, including Meduza, noted widespread phone and internet “glitches.”
On top of that travel disruptions have been piling up as well, with more than 350 flights disrupted thanks to the looming threat of drone strikes.
Digital Control
But of course, this isn’t Russia’s first time flipping the switch on data controls like this.
Following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has increasingly restricted access to the global internet and VPN services.

🇻🇦 VATICAN CITY
First American Pope Elected
Finally, Robert Prevost took the helm as Pope Leo XIV, officially stepping into the papal role at St. Peter’s Basilica.
He’s made history as the first American pope and becomes the 267th to take the throne.
Significance
Born in Chicago in 1955, he was raised in a family of immigrants with Spanish and Franco-Italian heritage, he grew up deeply rooted in church traditions.
The name Leo carries weighty significance. The first Pope Leo, reigning from 440 to 461, famously convinced Attila the Hun to spare Rome from attack. The last Pope Leo, who served from 1878 to 1903, championed worker rights.
His new title hints at a commitment to addressing modern social issues with the same resolve.
Social Media
So, what do we know about his stance on these so-called “modern social issues”?
Prevost wasn’t a prolific social media poster, but his reposts on X reveal his stance on several issues:
⬛️ Immigration
He backed Dreamers, defending young undocumented immigrants trying to stay in the US.
He once shared a post condemning both Trump and El Salvador's Nayib Bukele over the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Trump supporters labeled him a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, while critics argue he was deported "by mistake.”
He publicly disagreed with JD Vance’s claim that Christians should prioritize loving people close to them first.
⬛️ Gun Control
After the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, he reshared Sen. Chris Murphy’s call for action:

⬛️ Abortion
However, conservatives are holding out some hope for the new pope, as there are signs he may be pro-life.
For instance, in 2017, he shared a Catholic News Agency article condemning abortion:

Click here to view more of his views, gathered from his social media activity.
Controversies Ahead
However, Prevost’s journey isn’t without its challenges and lingering questions.
His long service in Peru came during times shadowed by sexual abuse scandals, though his diocese firmly denied any cover-up.
The new pontiff’s stance on LGBT matters remains a sensitive topic, reflecting a divide among some conservative cardinals.
Balancing tradition while navigating modern demands will be one of his defining challenges.

🇮🇳 INDIA & 🇵🇰PAKISTAN
Pakistan Strikes Back

Indian PM Narendra Modi (left) and Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif (right)
India and Pakistan are exchanging heavy fire—including drones and missiles—as tensions escalate after a recent terrorist attack in Kashmir, which India attributes to Pakistani militants.
Drone Attacks
Both nations are trading claims about drone strikes on military sites.
🇮🇳 India: it targeted Pakistani air-defense radar systems in response to drone and missile hits.
🇵🇰 Pakistan: it insists its soldiers were hit by Indian Harop drones.
Pakistani army officials claim they downed 25 drones since Wednesday night and reported equipment damage near Lahore.
“It appears India has, apparently, lost the plot and rather than going on a path of rationality is further escalating in a highly charged environment to satisfy the hubristic mindset of its government.”
Calibrated Retaliation
Despite the aggressive rhetoric, both countries claim to be limiting the escalation to avoid a full-scale conflict.
New Delhi claims its actions were carefully calibrated, responding to cross-border shelling that reportedly killed 16 civilians.
It says strikes on nine sites were aimed to sidestep major military targets on purpose.
Islamabad maintained that its actions, including a drone strike near Lahore, were proportionate to the provocations.
The careful wording from both sides hints at an effort to tread a fine line between defense and outright war.
Casualty Counts
Pakistani officials reported 31 civilians killed in strikes and damage to military hardware.
India confirmed that cross-border shelling resulted in 16 civilian deaths.
Numbers vary as each side offers its version of events amid the fog of conflict.
Diplomatic Efforts
As the standoff intensifies, the US has stepped in, urging both nations to defuse the situation before it spirals further.
US diplomatic contacts have ramped up with calls for calm.
President Trump remarked, “They’ve gone tit-for-tat so hopefully they can stop now. If I can do anything to help, I will be there.”

🇺🇸 UNITED STATES
Gates Slams Musk

Elon Musk (left) and Bill Gates (right)
Bill Gates lashed out at Elon Musk after Musk’s DOGE cuts effectively defunded USAID, a move Gates claims is “killing the world’s poorest children.”
Here’s his exact quote:
“The picture of the world’s richest man killing the world’s poorest children is not a pretty one.”
Gates’ Outcry
Gates argues that Musk’s push to slash US foreign aid shows a lack of understanding of the complexities, and that kind of thinking has real-world consequences.
According to Gates, a hospital in Mozambique, critical for preventing HIV transmission from mothers to babies, lost funding.
Gates challenged Musk to see the harm firsthand by urging him to meet the affected children.
“I’d love for him to go in and meet the children that have now been infected with HIV because he cut that money.”
White House Reacts
A White House spokesperson pushed back on Gates’ harsh remarks, painting Musk as a patriot.
Harrison Fields claimed Musk is “working to fulfill President Trump’s mission to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.”
The message highlighted support for American taxpayers and accountability in Washington.
Opinions
Supporters of defunding ask why the US should bankroll other countries while Americans struggle at home.
Critics argue that, as the leader of the free world, the US has a duty to help less-fortunate nations. Plus, as Gates points out, stopping diseases abroad helps keep them from reaching American shores.
Keep in mind, this is just a simplified snapshot of a much more tangled web of opinions swirling around the issue.
Foundation’s Future
Spurred by the fallout over USAID, Gates announced a plan to reshape the Gates Foundation.
He plans to allocate over $200 billion over the next 20 years, doubling its spending from the first 25 years.
The strategy aims to wrap up the foundation’s work by 2045 as a “perpetual” model gives way to a finite, impact-driven mission.
📊 Poll
Despite the seemingly good intentions of mega-charities like the Gates Foundation, critics argue that these wealthy institutions wield too much influence over policy, both in the US and globally, without answering to the public or the ballot box.
Some argue it boils down to this: Gates can either hand his wealth over to the government or channel it through his own foundation, and at least with the latter, he has a say in where it goes.
Honestly, if I were wealthy, I’d want to keep my money out of the government’s hands, too. But that’s just the opinion of someone who believes in limited government, and that its inefficiency and lack of incentive for efficiency prevent it from putting money to its best possible use.
But I also have some acquaintances who believe that the government, elected by the people, will spend the money on things most beneficial to its constituents—and is therefore the better trustee.
What do you think? Maybe you see it another way?
If you were rich, who would you trust to handle your money?(Live poll) |

🇺🇸 UNITED STATES
US-UK Trade Deal:
Does It Live Up to the Hype?
Trump and Starmer unveiled a limited trade arrangement that tweaks tariffs while keeping a 10% tariff on British exports.
The deal hints at further negotiations even as both sides celebrate a modest opening in their long-fought tariff war.
Deal Unveiled
The announcement came after Trump teased a “MAJOR TRADE DEAL” on Truth Social.
Trump and Starmer both hailed the move, with Starmer declaring, “This is a really fantastic, historic day,” evoking memories of postwar milestones.
The announcement marked the first in a series of trade deals aimed at diluting America’s steep tariff policies.
Tariff Adjustments
The deal preserves some tariffs while easing others, a balancing act between protection and progress.
US tariffs on British auto imports drop from 27.5% to 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles, and steel duties fall from 25% to zero.
Meanwhile, UK tariffs on US ethanol are set to fall from 19% to zero within an expansive quota, but a baseline 10% tariff on British goods remains.
Ongoing Talks
While the deal is inked, negotiations are far from over as the pressure mounts on both sides.
Despite President Trump announcing this deal as a “full and comprehensive” agreement, the UK ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson, described the deal as the “end of the beginning.” Here’s a reporter questioning Trump whether this disparity in messaging is because of Trump’s need to show fast wins during a tough stretch for his administration—marked by market skepticism and growing criticism.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and top trade negotiator Jamieson Greer are heading to Switzerland for talks with Chinese officials, signaling more deals on the horizon.
Industry Impact
Market reactions and business concerns have added layers of complexity to the deal’s reception.
Trump proclaimed, “It opens up a tremendous market for us,” a comment that briefly boosted US indexes.
British exporters and industry groups expressed disappointment that the 10% tariff remains, fearing it could stifle growth in key sectors.
Looking Ahead
This limited deal is just the beginning as policymakers brace for more adjustments and discussions.
Unresolved issues—such as the restructuring of Britain’s digital services tax and competitive challenges in sectors like beef and pharmaceuticals—point to continued negotiations and potential realignments.