With Ukraine signed up to US proposals for a 30-day ceasefire, the pressure is now on the Kremlin to decide whether it too will accept President Donald Trump’s plan to bring the Ukraine war to a halt, albeit a temporary one.

Russian officials are hinting at contacts with US representatives “in the next few days” but have not said whether the terms of the ceasefire, as set out at the US-Ukrainian talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, would be acceptable.

For Moscow, this is a moment of truth and one which may require awkward compromises if it is serious about peace.

The Kremlin has long claimed to be open to negotiations to end the conflict, while insisting it must achieve its ambitious war aims, such as securing control over all annexed areas of Ukraine.

Only last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin strongman who launched this brutal war three years ago, vowed to a group of tearful widows and mothers of killed Russian soldiers that Moscow would never “give in”.

Pro-war Russian hardliners, at times encouraged by the Kremlin, may see a ceasefire as a betrayal.

But a climbdown of some sort may be inevitable.

Even if Russian negotiators can impose their own conditions on the ceasefire – a Ukrainian withdrawal from Kursk, for example, the small pocket of Russia captured by Ukraine, where fighting is now raging – it is hard to imagine its greater territorial demands, yet alone the goal of removing NATO from its western flank, would be met.

This may also become a decisive crossroads in Putin’s oddly warm relationship with Trump who, in exchange for recent concessions and praise, may now expect the Kremlin leader to play ball.

Indeed, “the ball is now in their court,” is precisely what the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said of the Russians after his talks with Ukrainian officials concluded in Jeddah.

Just days ago, Trump claimed the Russians had “all the cards.” Now, intentionally or not, he may have called Putin’s bluff.

Since Donald Trump began his second term, Canadian politician Doug Ford has become one of the loudest international voices to contest the US president’s “America First” trade policy.

The Ontario premier is now a ubiquitous presence on US cable news as he pushes back against US tariffs on Canadian goods while telling Americans that “Canada is not for sale” in the face of Trump’s threat to turn it into the 51st state.

Here’s how the leader of Canada’s most populous province became one of the standard bearers of Canada’s response to the Trump administration.

A political family

Ford comes from a prominent political family in Ontario. His father served in the provincial legislature and his older brother Rob Ford was a colorful figure in Toronto city politics for over a decade.

After Rob Ford left his seat on Toronto’s city council when he became mayor in 2010, Doug Ford ran and took his place. Three years into the elder Ford brother’s tenure as mayor of Toronto, however, Rob was caught on video smoking crack cocaine.

Though Rob Ford admitted to using the drug, he refused to resign, and the scandal seriously damaged his reputation and derailed his term as mayor. After spending time in drug rehabilitation, Rob Ford managed to return to his old seat on Toronto’s city council in 2014 before his death from cancer in 2016.

Two years later, Doug Ford contested and won the 2018 race for leader of Ontario’s center-right Progressive Conservatives, leading the party to victory the same year and assuming the premiership.

Brash rhetoric and bipartisanship

When Ford first ran to lead Ontario’s government, he would tout his extensive business experience and denounce elites who drink “their little glass of champagne with their pinkies up in the air.”

Ford’s brash rhetoric and election night pledge to end the government’s “party with the taxpayers’ money” drew numerous comparisons to Trump. Ford told Toronto’s CityNews in 2016 that a Trump presidency would be far more preferable to having “Crooked Hillary” in the White House.

Yet over the arc of his premiership, Ford’s efforts at bipartisanship have buoyed his popularity in Ontario. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, he developed a cordial relationship with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, particularly with Chrystia Freeland, who was deputy prime minister at the time.

“All the premiers love Chrystia Freeland,” Ford told reporters in 2023. “I just love her a little more than the rest of the premiers.”

Canada’s anti-tariff spokesman

The premier’s re-election campaign, in which he won his third consecutive term in late February, plainly asked voters for “a strong, four-year mandate” to protect Ontario from Trump’s tariffs, according to a January press release from his party.

Ford is uniquely sensitive to the effects of Trump’s protectionism. His province’s economy is highly integrated with the United States: its electrical grid is connected with its southern neighbor, and Ontario trades hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods with the US every year.

Ford has sought to broadcast that close relationship through his many back-to-back TV appearance in the past months, often beginning his interviews with the refrain that “Canadians love Americans.”

When he isn’t speaking to reporters, Ford has placed Ontario’s message in the commercial breaks. He launched an ad campaign in December aimed at US consumers, reminding them of Ontario, their “ally to the North,” and eager trading partner. On March 9, Ford told CBS that Ontario would launch a new series of ads attacking Trump’s tariff policy.

Asked by reporters how much he’s willing to spend on advertisements, Ford claimed on Tuesday that Ontario’s ad campaign would ultimately save Canada “tens of billions of dollars” by stymying the trade war.

After Trump announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Ford was among several Canadian premiers who ordered US alcohol off provincial liquor store shelves and encouraged his constituents to “Buy Canadian.”

The 60-year-old has also taken aim directly at one member of Trump’s inner circle, tearing up a provincial contract with Elon Musk’s satellite internet provider Starlink and banning American companies from working with Ontario’s government.

But few have adopted Ford’s theatrical flair or gone to the same lengths to show their displeasure with Trump’s tariffs. He often dons a “Canada Is Not For Sale” baseball cap reminiscent of Trump’s trademark MAGA hats.

In the face of Trump’s claims that Canada is ripping Americans off, Ford has offered colorful threats of his own. At a recent press conference, the premier said that he’d shut off Ontario’s electricity exports to the US “with a smile on [his] face” if the Trump Administration escalated tariffs.

But on Tuesday, he backed down on his 25% surcharge on electricity exports to three US states, saying it was suspended “temporarily” after speaking with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

“Tit for tat, I’ve agreed to suspend temporarily, and we always have that tool in our tool kit until we sit down,” Ford told reporters in Toronto, before adding that if Trump “continues with the aluminum and steel” tariffs, Canada’s government “will respond dollar for dollar, tariff for tariff.”

Throughout his media crusade, Ford has tried to appeal to the American people, and has urged the US to come back to the negotiating table.

The arguments are well rehearsed, and now must meet reality.

A 30-day ceasefire is, unhesitatingly, good news, at first. But a truce is the most complex, and damaged idea of this decade-long conflict. And how it endures will define Ukraine’s support, sovereignty and survival.

After likely hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian dead, it will be hard for any side to refuse the concept of a truce. Moscow will be under pressure to show it is not the obstacle to US President Donald Trump’s goal of peace at almost any cost.

This is a surreal place for the Kremlin to occupy, after three years of savage aggression and little public desire to end the war outside of the US-Russia diplomacy of the past two months. To maintain the illusion he is Trump’s partner in this, Russian President Vladimir Putin will likely accept some form of peace. It may not be an immediate ceasefire, and he may, as Russia has before, choose to delay its start to pursue military goals first, particularly in the Kursk region, where Ukraine is close to being kicked out of the sliver of Russia it’s held since August.

But then reality will greet the theory of telephone diplomacy. The first argument to be tested is the Kremlin cannot be trusted to engage in meaningful diplomacy as its history shows it rarely does. The second argument is Kyiv retains maximalist ambitions to regain its territory, and is refusing the freezing of the front lines, as this would mean the likely permanent loss of a fifth of its land, and because Ukraine will likely not re-equip with the same vigor as Moscow and be at a disadvantage when Russia attacks again. These ideas too will be challenged.

It is, however, clear now that most Ukrainians feel a counteroffensive to retake territory is a fever dream, when the basic task of fending off Russian assaults is beset by ammunition and manpower shortages.

But the ghastly grit and chaos of this war is unlikely to be kind to a truce. Instead, any ceasefire will likely devolve into a pitched battle to assign blame for its collapse.

The Kremlin head’s main goal, for now, is to continue to enforce Trump’s suspicions that Zelensky is the impediment to his peace. Putin cannot refuse a ceasefire, without losing the fictitious moral high ground. But it is what comes next – or during any pause in hostilities – that will define the outcome of the war.

Firstly, it is a complete ceasefire, across all front lines, for an entire month. This is, in and of itself, a very big ask. Across hundreds of miles, both sides have for years used armor, then artillery, then drones to hunt each other viciously, amid what is now called ‘beetroot’ – the horrific mulch of corpses discarded in combat – on the zero line. The expectation is that for a month, suddenly, this can all stop. That there will be no mistakes. That nobody will open fire in panic, or to settle scores. That a cooking gas cannister won’t detonate in error, and spark a shoot-out that breaks the peace permanently.

For this reason, some European officials and Ukraine had initially proposed a partial ceasefire of air, sea and attacks on energy infrastructure. Their argument was this would be more easily monitored – that violations would be more simply attributed to either side. Yet this argument has been rejected in Jeddah for something much wider-ranging. If Moscow agrees, everything has to suddenly stop for a month.

It is near impossible there will not be errors, or clashes. In the past Russia has exceled at misinformation, maskirovka – deceit as a tactic on the battlefield – as well as false flag operations, when incidents are staged to provide the impetus for retaliation. There will be moments, in any month’s pause, where small arms clashes, or drone strikes, prove impossible to attribute to either side as the aggressor: where AI-manipulation, or faked accounts, or entirely fictitious incidents, fill the information space.

Algorithms will seek to amplify falsehoods. World leaders will struggle to have a cogent grasp of minor details of who-shot-who on the front line. Areas where seismic events have occurred will prove out of reach to investigators owing to the violence that erupts again.

The evidence of the past decade should lead to pessimism, and deceit has flown almost entirely one way. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 but pretended it had not. Russia agreed to a ceasefire in 2015, and in its first days took the Ukrainian town of Debaltseve. Russia said it would not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but did. Russia said at first it was not using prisoners on the front line, but now some of its jails are near empty.

Moscow’s track record should underpin every assessment of how any peace lasts. To quote the poem Trump cited to defend his hostile position on migrants: “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.” We should be clear-eyed about the Kremlin’s goals. They will not be achieved by the freezing of the front line. Putin needs a wider victory to justify the losses this far, and to satisfy his exaggerated idea of the threat the West now poses to him.

The risk is clear: that a truce collapses, likely due to Russian action, Trump incorrectly believes Ukraine is to blame for spoiling his peace, and Ukraine’s aid is again frozen, this time with a more vindictive edge as they have been deemed the aggressor. Moscow claims it is the victim again, and launches another intense assault on Ukraine, where a brief calm has led to a slowing in Western aid and military readiness.

As Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State, said of Moscow: “The ball is now in their court.” This is true and admirable as an outcome. But it is also the case that Russia excels at grabbing the ball, pocketing it, debating the rules of the game and points lost three sets ago, before claiming the ball has in fact been stolen clean from them by the other team.

The White House is about to get a masterclass in real Kremlin diplomacy. Trump’s disruptive and at times blunt methods brought us here. If applied to Moscow as bluntly and disruptively, they may reduce the biggest security threat in Europe since the Nazis. But they may also appear too fleeting in application, and too basic in scope to deal with the cool deception and glacial patience of Moscow.

Armed groups killed entire families, including women and children, during an outbreak of sectarian violence in Syria last week, the United Nations’ human rights office said on Tuesday.

The bloodshed in the coastal heartland of former ruler Bashar al-Assad saw more than 800 people killed in clashes between armed groups loyal to the toppled dictator and forces loyal to the new Syrian regime, according to a war monitor.

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan said the agency had documented at least 111 killings, though the number was believed to be far higher.

“Some survivors told us that many men were shot dead in front of their families,” Al-Kheetan told a regular press briefing in Geneva, adding that many of the “summary executions” targeted members of the Alawite minority.

The Assad family, which ruled Syria for more than half a century, are members of the minority Shiite Muslim sect, which lives predominantly in Sunni-majority Syria.

Al-Kheetan said the killings “appear to have been carried out on a sectarian basis, in Tartus, Latakia and Hama governorates – reportedly by unidentified armed individuals, members of armed groups allegedly supporting the caretaker authorities’ security forces.”

“In a number of extremely disturbing instances, entire families – including women, children and individuals hors de combat – were killed, with predominantly Alawite cities and villages targeted in particular,” he said.

The United Kingdom-based Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) said on Tuesday that among the 803 killed, “non-state armed groups” loyal to Assad were responsible for the deaths of 383 people, including 172 members of state security forces and 211 civilians.

The men abducted Mousa and he was found five hours later lying in the street with gunshot wounds to his chest and abdomen, the relative said. Mousa died in hospital the next day, they said.

Throughout Assad’s rule, the Alawite sect became increasingly linked, in the eyes of his opponents, to the atrocities committed by his regime during the Syrian civil war.

Interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who once led the al Qaeda-linked group that toppled Assad late last year, has previously promised political equality and representation to the various sects of Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious populations.

The caretaker authorities announced the end of security operations in the coastal areas on March 10, but intermittent clashes continue to be reported.

Sharaa has blamed the violence on the remains of Assad’s forces, claiming they were trying to incite sectarian strife.

On Sunday, Sharaa said his government would hold accountable anyone involved in the deaths of civilians during the heavy fighting. Sharaa had previously described the violence as “expected challenges.”

Syria’s interim government has vowed to form an independent committee to investigate the violence and submit a report to the presidency within 30 days.

An elected leader once dubbed “The Punisher” is on his way to The Hague to face trial for crimes against humanity during a brutal war on drugs, in a breathtaking reversal of fortune for a politician who once openly boasted about killing people and placing opponents on hit lists.

Rodrigo Duterte ran the Philippines for six turbulent years, during which he oversaw a brutal crackdown on drugs, openly threatened critics with death and tongue-lashed a host of global leaders from the Pope to former US President Barack Obama.

A former prosecutor, congressman and mayor, Duterte built his no-holds-bared reputation in the southern Philippine city of Davao. He swept to the presidency in 2016 on a populist – and popular – promise to replicate the hardline tactics of his hometown and wage war against drugs and drug pushers across the Southeast Asian nation.

“All of you who are into drugs, you sons of b**ches, I will really kill you,” he told a huge crowd in one of his many characteristically profane-laced 2016 campaign speeches. “I have no patience, I have no middle ground. Either you kill me or I will kill you idiots.”

Once in power he unleashed what rights groups called “death squads” to eradicate drug pushers – many of the victims young men from impoverished shanty towns, shot by police and rogue gunmen as part of a campaign to target dealers.

Police data said 6,000 people were killed. Some rights groups say the death toll could be as high as 30,000 with innocents and bystanders often caught in the crossfire.

Duterte’s blood-soaked presidency ended in 2022. Three years later, only 8 policemen had been convicted for 5 of the victims killed in the war on drugs, according to court documents.

The ICC launched an investigation into allegations of “crimes against humanity” committed by Duterte during both his time as national leader and mayor of Davao.

Duterte has long denied the accusations of human rights abuses and contends the drug issue is one for domestic law enforcement. He has repeatedly said he will not kowtow to foreign jurisdiction and taunted the ICC, urging prosecutors to “hurry up” and move on him.

Two days before his arrest, he slammed the ICC in a typically fiery speech to supporters in Hong Kong.

“From my own news, I have a warrant…from the ICC or something… these motherf***ers have been chasing me for a long time. What did I do wrong ?” he said.

A sudden arrest

But the tide had suddenly turned. Authorities were waiting for Duterte to return from Hong Kong, and arrested him at the main airport in Manila, sparking chaotic scenes.

As the news filtered out, many were left in shock.

Some flocked to churches in the majority Catholic country to attend impromptu mass to commemorate the thousands of victims of his drug war, seeing the move as a first step towards overdue justice.

And just before midnight, Duterte was back on a plane – this time bound for the Netherlands what appeared to be a stunning end to stormy and violent stint at the top of Philippine politics.

Why now?

The arrest likely owes more to Duterte being on the wrong side of a feud between two of the Philippine’s most high-profile families than the might of the ICC, which cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants

Duterte’s clan was previously in an alliance with the famed Marcos political dynasty, with his daughter his daughter Sara Duterte-Carpio serving as deputy to current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

But in recent months the alliance collapsed, descending into public tirades and name-calling.

In October, Duterte-Carpio aired a litany of grievances against the president in a two-hour livestreamed press conference, saying she “wanted to chop his head off.”

Then she said in an online news conference on November 23 that she had contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, his wife and Romualdez if she were killed, a threat she warned wasn’t a joke.

Marcos had said the Philippines will “disengage” from any contact with the ICC, as Manila does not recognize its authority over matters of national sovereignty.

That’s because Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the court in 2019.

But under the ICC’s withdrawal mechanism, the court keeps jurisdiction over crimes committed during the membership period of a state.

But President Marcos said he was obliged to follow Interpol’s request to arrest Duterte.

“Interpol asked for help, and we obliged because we have commitments to the Interpol, which we have to fulfil. If we don’t do that, they will not, they will no longer help us with other cases involving Filipino fugitives abroad,” Marcos said in a late-night presser after the plane carrying Duterte took off.

What comes next?

Carlos Conde, a Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW) Conde said Duterte’s swift arrest and removal was a “pleasant surprise” that caught also a lot of people off guard.

“But there is this mixed feeling of joy and hope and anxiety because we do not exactly know where this will end up to what will be the outcome. Will there really be accountability?” said Parong, who is also co-chair of the Philippine Coalition for the ICC (PCICC).

But she cautioned it would be an excruciatingly long road to justice.

“It is time consuming. It will take years before there will be a conviction at the International Criminal Court. The waiting is really difficult for the victims and the families of the victims of the bloody war on drugs.”

What is the ICC?

Located in The Hague in the Netherlands, the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression against the territory of its member states, of which there are 125.

Duterte’s arrest and transfer is a significant victory for the body. The court cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants – which often rests on domestic politics and political will on whether to follow through.

Many of those on its wanted list remain at large, unruffled by the serious charges laid against them.

The court has been rounded on by the United States for seeking the arrests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for Israel’s military actions in Gaza following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack.

The ICC simultaneously sought the arrests of top Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, who was later killed.

Neither the US nor Israel are members of the ICC.

The court has also issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for his invasion of Ukraine, although it is unlikely the warrant will be served any time soon. Putin travelled to ICC member Mongolia last year, but was not arrested.

Greenland’s pro-business Demokraatit opposition party won Tuesday’s closely-watched parliamentary election with 29.9% of the vote, according to official results.

US President Donald Trump’s idea to annex the territory has thrown an international spotlight on the election and raised questions about the island’s future security as the United States, Russia and China vie for influence in the Arctic.

All the dominant parties in Greenland, a Danish autonomous region rich in oil and gas, agree on the desire for independence from Denmark.

Demokraatit takes a slower approach to the question of independence that has loomed over this election, according to Reuters.

The ousted ruling democratic socialist party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, view independence it as a long-term project requiring years of negotiation with Denmark and further economic improvement.

The main opposition party Naleraq – which has campaigned to sever ties with Denmark more quickly and wants to pursue a defense agreement with the US – fell behind in the polls, winning 24.5% of the vote, results showed.

Denmark ruled Greenland as a colony until 1953, when the island achieved greater powers of self-governance. Then, in 2009, it gained more powers pertaining to minerals, policing and courts of law. But Denmark still controls security, defense, foreign and monetary policy. Greenland also benefits from Denmark’s European Union and NATO memberships.

Greenland holds elections every four years, with 31 seats in parliament at stake. With Tuesday’s results, the previous two-party coalition – Inuit Ataqatigiit and the Siumut party – is expected to lose their parliamentary majority, Reuters reported. They won a combined 36.1% of the vote, down from 66.1% in 2021.

Trump rhetoric

In almost every election in recent years, Greenland’s politicians have promised to take steps to achieve autonomy. None of them have offered a concrete timeline, though.

But Trump’s aggressive stance has actually given the Arctic territory more bargaining power with Denmark, analysts say, and kicked the independence movement into high gear.

A poll in January, commissioned by Danish and Greenlandic newspapers, found that 85% of Greenlanders did not want to become part of the US, with nearly half saying Trump’s interest was a threat, Reuters reported.

“I strongly believe that we will very soon start to live a life more based on who we are, based on our culture, based on our own language, and start to make regulations based on us, not based on Denmark,” said Naleraq candidate Qupanuk Olsen, according to Reuters.

While Greenlandic politicians have repeatedly signaled that they’re uninterested in annexation, they are open to deals with the United States for rare earth mining, expanding tourism, stronger diplomatic connections and other investments.

The United States already has a military base in the Arctic Circle in far northwest Greenland.

The captain of the Solong cargo ship who was arrested after crashing into a US-flagged tanker off the English coast is a Russian national, the vessel’s owner said Wednesday, as maritime experts search for answers.

The Solong careered into the Stena Immaculate while it was at anchor in the North Sea and carrying huge amounts of jet fuel for the US military, setting fire to both vessels and prompting emergency rescue efforts by the British coastguard.

British police have since opened a criminal investigation into the crash and arrested a 59-year-old man on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

The rest of the crew are a mix of Russians and Filipinos, the spokesperson added.

Martyn Boyers, chief executive of the nearby Port of Grimsby East, had expressed disbelief that such a crash could have happened, given the sophistication of modern shipping technology.

The Portuguese-flagged Solong was still burning more than a day on from the crash, while the fire on the Stena Immaculate was put out earlier Tuesday.

A missing crew member from the Solong is presumed dead, according to Britain’s maritime minister Mike Kane, after a search and rescue operation was called off late Monday.

The cargo ship’s other 13 crew members were rescued, along with the full 23-person crew of the Stena Immaculate, Kane said.

The Stena Immaculate, which is managed by the United States logistics firm Crowley, is part of a fleet of 10 tankers involved in a US government program to supply its military with fuel. The Department of Defense’s “Tanker Security Program,” according to Crowley, “ensures a commercial fleet can readily transport liquid fuel supplies in times of need.”

Pakistan’s military have been engaged in a deadly standoff for more than 24 hours with armed militants who hijacked a train and took hostages, in a dramatic escalation of an insurgency that has plagued the region for decades.

The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a militant separatist group active in the restive and mineral-rich southwestern Balochistan province, claimed responsibility for the attack.

Around 450 passengers were on the Jaffer Express enroute from Balochistan’s capital Quetta to Peshawar in the north, when militants opened “intense gunfire” as the train traveled through a tunnel early in its journey, according to officials.

By early Wednesday morning, 155 hostages had been rescued and 27 militants killed, according to the security sources, with video showing elderly women, men and children looking pale, frightened – but relieved – as they reunited with their families. It’s unclear how many people are still being held.

At least 10 civilians and members of Pakistan’s security forces had been killed, according to government and railway officials.

The security sources accused the militants of being in contact with handlers in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s military and government have long accused Afghanistan of providing sanctuary to militant groups, something its Taliban leaders have denied.

Scores of injured hostages have been taken to hospital for treatment, with an effort to rescue those still kidnapped underway.

An evolving insurgency

Tuesday’s kidnapping is an audacious moment for a separatist insurgency who seeks greater political autonomy and economic development in the strategically important and mineral-rich mountainous region.

But it also highlights the ever-deteriorating security situation there – one that Pakistan’s government has been grappling with for decades.

Balochistan’s population – made up mostly of the ethnic Baloch group – is deeply disenfranchised, impoverished, and has been growing increasingly alienated from the federal government by decades of policies widely seen as discriminatory.

An insurgency there has been ongoing for decades but has gained traction in recent years since the province’s deep-water Gwadar port was leased to China, the jewel in the crown of Beijing’s “Belt and Road” infrastructure push in Pakistan.

The port, often touted as “the next Dubai,” has become a security nightmare with persistent bombings of vehicles carrying Chinese workers, resulting in many deaths.

Some analysts said Tuesday’s attack marked an escalation in the sophistication of attacks by the insurgents.

The “larger point that the Pakistani state is not grasping … is that it’s not business as usual anymore,” said Abdul Basit, a Senior Associate Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

“The insurgency has evolved both in its strategy and scale,” he added, saying Pakistan’s approach to tackle the Baloch militants’ “seem to have run its course.”

“Instead of revising its counterproductive policies, it is persisting with them, resulting in recurrent security and intelligence failures,” Basit said.

The BLA has been responsible for the deadliest attacks in Pakistan in the past year.

A suicide bombing by the BLA at a train station in Quetta killed more than two dozen people last November. The previous month, it claimed responsibility for an attack on a convoy of Chinese engineers, resulting in two deaths.

In the wake of Tuesday’s attack, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif vowed to “continue to fight against the monster of terrorism until it is completely eradicated from the country.”

In a statement, he said the “terrorists’ targeting of innocent passengers during the peaceful and blessed month of Ramadan is a clear reflection that these terrorists have no connection with the religion of Islam, Pakistan and Balochistan.”

Analysts say such attacks need urgent attention from the federal government.

“(Tuesday’s attack) has gained global attention and it will worry China, which has its investments in the province – more than any other state,” said Basit. “A major reset of existing security paradigm is required in Balochistan.”