Lesotho’s foreign minister said on Wednesday he was shocked and insulted by US President Donald Trump saying nobody has heard of the African country, and invited him to come visit.

Trump mentioned Lesotho in his address to US Congress on Tuesday evening while listing some of the foreign spending he had cut as “appalling waste.”

“Eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of,” Trump said, drawing laughs in the Congress.

Lesotho’s foreign minister, Lejone Mpotjoane, said the remark was “quite insulting.”

“I’m really shocked that my country can be referred to like that by the head of state,” he told Reuters.

Lesotho, a mountainous nation of about 2 million people which is encircled by South Africa, has the highest average altitude of any country and is sometimes called The Kingdom in the Sky.

“Lesotho is such a significant and unique country in the whole world. I would be happy to invite the president, as well as the rest of the world to come to Lesotho,” said Mpotjoane.

He said some civil society organizations funded by the US Embassy in Lesotho did work to support the LGBT+ community, but the United States also provided important funding for the country’s health and agriculture sectors.

Trump’s administration has cut billions of dollars in foreign aid worldwide as it seeks to align spending with Trump’s “America First” policy.

Mpotjoane said Lesotho was feeling the impact as the health sector had been reliant on that aid for some time, but that the government was looking at how to become more self-sufficient.

“The decision by the president to cut the aid… it is (his) prerogative to do that,” said Mpotjoane. “We have to accept that. But to refer to my country like that, it is quite unfortunate.”

The Vatican appears to have modified its position against gender-affirming surgery and “gender theory” last year, raising the possibility of “exceptional situations.”

This week the Vatican published a speech by doctrine chief Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández where he said, “there are cases outside the norm, such as strong dysphorias that can lead to an unbearable existence or even suicide. These exceptional situations must be evaluated with great care.”

The Argentinian prelate, speaking to a theology conference in Cologne, Germany, explained: “We don’t want to be cruel and say that we don’t understand people’s conditioning and the deep suffering that exists in some cases of ‘dysphoria’ that manifests itself even from childhood.”

In April last year, the Vatican issued a strong warning against “gender theory” and said that any “sex-change intervention” risks threatening “the unique dignity” of a person.

The document, signed by Pope Francis, focused on what it describes as a range of threats to human dignity, including poverty, the death penalty, war, assisted dying, abortion, sexual abuse, and the abuse of women.

Last year’s text stated that attempts to obscure “the sexual difference between man and woman,” including gender-affirming surgery, should be rejected. “It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception,” it added at the time.

While this week’s publication on the Vatican site acknowledges the possibility of gender dysphoria, it still makes clear that the church opposes the idea “that bodily-sexual identity can be the object of radical change, always subject to one’s own desires…”

Pope Francis has in the past welcomed a community of transgender women to his weekly general audiences while he signed off on a Vatican document permitting trans people to be godparents.

This comes as the ailing 88-year-old pope battles double pneumonia at Rome’s Gemelli hospital where he has been since mid-February, often working during the day.

From the hospital, the pontiff has still been making decisions such as calling a meeting of pope and cardinals to decide sainthood causes at an unspecified date.

Security guarantees. It’s the phrase Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used countless times during an explosive clash with US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance at the White House last week – and since.

How can Ukraine be assured that Russian President Vladimir Putin would abide by any ceasefire deal – and not resume fighting in a year or two, Zelensky asks. And how can Ukraine be protected from the unyielding ambitions of its more powerful neighbor?

Trump has been openly dismissive of Zelensky’s preoccupation with such guarantees. “Security is so easy, that’s about 2% of the problem,” he said during Friday’s Oval Office showdown.

Trump’s answers to the wider issue of Ukrainian security have been vague, beyond claiming the Europeans will handle it and that there’ll be no need for a US backstop.

“It should not be that hard a deal to make,” Trump said Monday, hours before he announced a pause in shipments of US military aid to Ukraine.

He also suggested that the presence of American companies exploiting Ukraine’s rare-earths and other minerals would be enough to keep Russia at bay. “I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers,” he said.

There were plenty of US companies operating in Ukraine on the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion of 2022.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio might have a more realistic take. In a Fox News interview last week, he said that “what Ukraine really needs is a deterrent … to make it costly for anyone to come after them again in the future.” He added that this “doesn’t have to just be America. I mean, the Europeans can be involved in that.”

Other US officials have said the US won’t be part of that deterrence. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said European troops in Ukraine would not enjoy protection under NATO’s principle of collective security. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has said the matter of security guarantees is “squarely going to be with the Europeans.”

A Ukrainian DMZ?

European leaders met in London on Sunday to begin to search for some answers for Ukraine as well as longer-term solutions to the unravelling of transatlantic relations.

“This is a once-in-a-generation moment for the security of Europe,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, calling for a “coalition of the willing.”

“Europe knows one thing: the deal, if it happens, is not simply about carving up Ukraine or securing a quick ceasefire … it is about a lasting and secure peace agreement, about existential security issues for all of Europe,” Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to Washington, wrote in Foreign Affairs.

But Claudia Major and Aldo Kleemann at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said in a recently published paper that the Europeans “lack both the necessary military capabilities and the political will and unity” to shoulder the burden.

French President Emmanuel Macron optimistically suggested negotiations would take “several weeks and then, once peace is signed, a (troop) deployment.” The deployment would have to be agreed with Russia.

Macron acknowledged, however, that a truce along the 1,000-kilometer (6,200 mile) front line would be “very difficult” to enforce. Peacekeepers would have to operate in a landscape of forests, fields and the wreckage of industrial towns, surrounded on three sides in some areas, with poor or non-existent roads.

The UK and France have expressed a willingness to be part of a post-conflict force to maintain the peace. Australia has also said that it is open to discussing a role.

But the response of other Europeans has been underwhelming. Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said it “will require an effort that many are not yet really sufficiently prepared for.” Other allies evaded questions about their readiness to join a peacekeeping mandate. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said that deploying Italian troops “has never been on the table.”

Starmer says other countries are ready to contribute but has not identified them. But the UK prime minister also said that the “effort must have strong US backing,” which is far from assured.

Estimates for the size of this proposed force vary as wildly as ideas for its mission and powers. Is it a small tripwire force that deters because it is backed by a more robust response to any violation? Is it a fully equipped mission able to defend itself?

But they warn that “a ‘bluff and pray’ approach that deploys too few troops and relies essentially on the hope that Russia will not test it would be irresponsible.”

Zelensky pressed the same point in London over the weekend, insisting on the need for “very specific security guarantees and with very specific providers of these (guarantees)” that would make “100% impossible any kind of opportunity for Russia to come with another aggression.”

A full-fledged peacekeeping force would need to be at least 100,000-strong, an overwhelming commitment for European armies alone, especially when necessary rotations are included. By comparison, the peacekeeping mission that began in Kosovo in 1999 had 48,000 soldiers. Ukraine is more than 50 times the size of Kosovo.

Analysts also say that such a force would require a substantial demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating the combatants and a constant liaison with both sides to handle violations.

There would need to be a Line of Control and the withdrawal of heavy weapons to a minimum distance of 40 kilometers (around 25 miles), they say. And neither side could fly drones in the DMZ.

There is also the issue of drones. Intervening in a conflict where drones and missiles have changed the nature of warfare, the peacekeeping force would require “electronic warfare, counter-drone and counter-intelligence capabilities,” Mick Ryan, the author of the blog Futura Doctrina, said.

There are countless escalation risks, too. If Russian forces were to drop long-range shells on an outpost of French or British soldiers, would that put NATO states at war with Russia? That might even be tempting for the Kremlin. If it targeted European troops near Ukraine’s front lines, NATO’s European members might find themselves at war with Russia without US support.

Meanwhile, a lightly policed ceasefire is unlikely to cut it.

“At best, a highly unstable situation would obtain, where a renewal of hostilities would be easily possible or even likely,” Marc Weller, a professor of international law at the Cambridge Initiative for Peace Settlements, said.

The best-case scenario

Up to 100,000 peacekeepers, alongside a Ukrainian land force of some 200,000 soldiers, might suffice as a deterrent, he said. That would amount to roughly one-third of the Russian force deployed in or around Ukraine.

Starmer insisted that the “effort must have strong US backing.”

Even a well-equipped peacekeeping force would require US airlift capabilities, satellite coverage and missile defenses to deter fresh Russian offensives, all assets the Europeans lack.

Zelensky asserts that the “best security guarantee is a strong Ukrainian army and a strong Ukrainian army that has enough numbers.”

Ukrainian capabilities would also have to include longer-range Western missiles that would allow Ukraine to go after Russian supply lines and logistics hubs, as well as far more potent air power, in the event hostilities resume.

But unless the Kremlin is forced to negotiate, this is all a pipedream. The Russian Foreign Ministry has already said that the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine, whether under the Alliance banner or not, would be “categorically unacceptable.”

Official Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted the Foreign Intelligence Service on Tuesday as saying that a force of 100,000 peacekeepers “would amount to the de facto occupation of Ukraine.”

Russia “has made maximalist demands and will prove very difficult to budge,” Ischinger wrote. “It is an illusion to believe that a durable peace with Russia will break out simply by enshrining the line of contact in eastern Ukraine.”

Russia’s upper hand?

By Putin’s theory of war, Russia is winning. It’s making incremental gains that may be accelerated if Ukraine loses critical US military hardware. The Institute for the Study of War said Putin’s priorities are to “prevent Ukraine from acquiring and sustaining the manpower and materiel needed to stop gradual but continued Russian advances.”

With Trump in the White House, the Kremlin sees Zelensky as isolated, and the Europeans as left to fend for themselves. Russia has no incentive to compromise on its demands, which include possession of all four eastern regions of Ukraine that have been illegally annexed (even if Russia doesn’t occupy all of them); strict limits on the size and capabilities of the Ukrainian military; and Ukrainian neutrality.

“Ukraine should adopt a neutral, nonaligned status, be nuclear-free, and undergo demilitarization and denazification,” Putin told an audience last summer. By Moscow’s logic, Zelensky must go, because Russia cannot sign a deal with an “illegitimate” leader.

When push comes to shove, would the Trump administration turn the screws on the Kremlin? Trump and other senior US officials have said that Russia will be expected to make concessions, without providing details.

Under international law, recognition of Moscow’s rule over the four eastern regions of Ukraine would break every precedent, so the territorial question would have to be deferred, as has been the case in the Korean Peninsula for more than 60 years.

‘Steel porcupine’

As the Trump administration indicates that a defense review will lead to an eventual reduction of the American military footprint in Europe, and in the wake of its decision to pause military aid to Ukraine, all eyes are on European leaders’ next moves.

Europe can only contribute to the security guarantees that Ukraine needs through developing its own defense identity, combining joint research, production and training. This will not happen overnight, but steps to resuscitate Europe’s defense industries are already underway. Now they need to be turbo-charged.

The European Commission has been bullish about developing a fund for the defense industries, and on Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed allowing EU countries to draw up to €150 billion in loans and unlocking up to €800 billion of additional defense spending over the coming years.

She said EU members could “pool demand and to buy together and, of course, with this equipment, member states can massively step up their support to Ukraine.” The goal: to turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine” that proves “indigestible for future invaders.”

Looming over any prospect of a ceasefire deal, however, is the question of Russia’s long-term intentions – whatever the Kremlin might publicly agree to.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum included an assurance that Russia, along with the UK and the US, would “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” in return for Ukraine giving up Soviet-era nuclear weapons it had inherited.

Moscow repeatedly undermined the Minsk process designed to resolve the status of territories in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region that were seized in 2014-15 by pro-Russian militia. Putin persistently insisted Russia had no intention of invading Ukraine, until it did.

Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko recalled Monday how the ceasefire deal for Donbas signed by Russia in Paris in 2019 was violated by Moscow within weeks.

“Then, on February 18, 2020, Russians launched one of the largest assaults of the war. This is the Kremlin’s pattern: deception, false promises, and escalation,” Svyrydenko said.

More than Zelensky’s demands for security guarantees, that pattern is the greatest obstacle to peace.

Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin has initiated proceedings to dismiss the country’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, accusing her of abusing her authority to undermine the government’s policies and destabilize Israel’s rule of law. Right-wing Israeli politicians have long called for her dismissal.

The controversial move, announced Wednesday, has prompted a fierce backlash from opposition leaders, who condemned it as an unconstitutional escalation amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

Levin, a key ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, formally submitted a no-confidence motion against Baharav-Miara to the Cabinet Secretary alongside an 886-page dossier detailing allegations of misconduct.

The document, which includes a summary and letters to senior officials, accuses the attorney general of transforming her office into a “political entity” that obstructs government decisions, selectively enforces laws, and fuels societal divisions.

The Justice Ministry’s summary outlines several central claims, including that the attorney general’s role in Israel grants unparalleled influence compared to democratic counterparts in the rest of the world, enabling her to act as a “key political figure” rather than an impartial adviser.

Yair Lapid, head of the opposition, criticized Levin’s move as “criminal, violent, and unconstitutional,” accusing the justice minister of exploiting wartime divisions to consolidate power. “Levin, one of the main people responsible for the disaster of October 7, has learned nothing. He is harming the country, harming the rule of law, and harming the war effort,” Lapid said in a statement on Wednesday.

Critics claim the motion reflects what they say is a broader campaign by Netanyahu to weaken judicial oversight following a shelved judicial overhaul in July 2023 that sparked mass protests. Baharav-Miara, appointed in 2022, has frequently clashed with the government over its policies, including controversial judicial reforms and wartime decisions.

Levin’s office also announced the formation of a committee to select a new attorney general, signaling a push to expedite Baharav-Miara’s removal. The process, however, faces legal and political hurdles. Under Israeli law, dismissing the attorney general requires cabinet approval and a hearing, which opposition lawmakers pledge to challenge.

The move has deepened Israel’s political rift, with centrist and left-wing factions warning it jeopardizes democratic checks and balances. Supporters of the government, however, argue the attorney general’s office has overstepped its mandate, politicizing legal oversight.

Legal experts caution that Levin’s motion risks further polarizing institutions at a time of national crisis, with Israel embroiled in war and mounting international scrutiny over its Gaza campaign.

The attorney general’s role in Israel holds unique authority, serving as both the government’s legal adviser and a public watchdog. Unlike in many democracies, the position is not a political appointment tied to the ruling coalition, a structure Levin’s government has long sought to change.

Last year, Baharav-Miara ordered an investigation into Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Netanyahu, after a report alleged that she had harassed opponents.

Chinese warships have been circumnavigating Australia’s coastline for more than three weeks, passing within 200 miles of Sydney, and staging unprecedented live-fire drills on its doorstep with New Zealand.

The exercises, which came without formal notice, has deep caused consternation in both nations. Suddenly, the specter of China’s military power was suddenly no longer confined to the distant waters of the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait – where China’s territorial aggression has escalated under leader Xi Jinping – but a stark reality unfolding much closer to home.

At the same time, Chinese warships have been sighted near Vietnam and Taiwan, part of a show of Chinese naval strength in the Pacific region that regularly rattles US allies.

China was unapologetic and insisted it complied with international law, with state media suggesting Western countries should get used to Chinese warships in nearby waters.

In the past, Washington’s partners have found comfort in their firm ties with the US, but that was before Donald Trump’s explosive meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the US leader’s subsequent order to halt aid to Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion.

The bust-up in the Oval Office served to sharpen anxieties in capitals across the Pacific: If the US is willing to turn its back on Ukraine – effectively rewarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Europe – would it do the same in Asia when faced with a belligerent Beijing?

Trump’s embrace of Russia and his cold shoulder to Europe – driven by a transactional approach that Singapore’s defense minister likened to a “landlord seeking rent” – has heightened trepidation in the Indo-Pacific region, where many nations look to the US to keep Chinese aggression in check.

“It does raise issues as to whether the US will be committed to regional security. And even if the US remains committed, what will the Trump administration ask in return?” said Collin Koh, research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore.

Experts say it’s a fair question from allies who’ve long relied on the US to provide security assurances, enabling them to limit their own defense spending.

Now might be the time, they add, for American partners, like Australia and New Zealand, to reexamine budgets and tighten regional alliances with other countries that could find themselves exposed as Trump pursues his “America first” mantra.

‘Test of resolve’

Australia has made sure the world is aware of China’s movements in international waters in the South Pacific, issuing daily location updates from trailing Australian Navy ships and spy planes.

Defense Minister Richard Marles said the data would be analyzed to determine exactly what China was doing – and what message it was intending to send.

China’s ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, maintained that China posed no threat to Australia while signaling that more warship visits should be expected. “As a major power in this region…it is normal for China to send their vessels to different parts of the region to conduct various kinds of activities,” Xiao told Australia’s public broadcaster the ABC.

Across the Pacific in Washington, Trump was sending his own message to US partners in Europe that they needed to step up military spending in defense of Ukraine.

Before his fractious meeting with Zelensky, Trump had intended to sign mineral resources deal with the Ukrainian leader so that the US could recoup some of the cost of its aid to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion. But the signing ceremony was abandoned, with Trump telling Zelensky on his social platform Truth Social to “come back when he is ready for Peace.”

By subsequently cutting off military aid to Ukraine, Trump was seeking to force rich European nations to shoulder more of the load, say experts.

“He believes they have all been free riding off the United States for half a century,” said Peter Dean, the director of foreign policy and defense at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

The move seemed to reap rewards when on Tuesday the European Union unveiled a plan to allow member states to borrow €150 billion ($158 billion) to boost their defense spending and “massively step up” their military support for Kyiv.

Dean says Trump wants a deal for peace in Ukraine; however, he’s ignoring Zelensky’s concerns about the longevity of that peace without measures to keep Putin in check.

“It seems to be that (Trump) almost wants peace at any price, rather than a peace that is fair and equitable, or a peace that you keep,” he said. “The question is, what does the deal look like? And that’s what everyone’s worried about. How much is he willing to trade away?”

As Trump upends the transatlantic alliance – a pillar of Western security for decades – his administration has signaled that the US should wrap up conflicts elsewhere to focus on deterring China in the Pacific.

The urgency of that aim was highlighted by China’s latest flexing of its military muscle.

“It’s a test of resolve, for sure,” said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at RSIS in Singapore, of China’s military drills. “China (is) carving out a sphere of influence in the Pacific to test to see if countries in the region are going to resist it.”

AUKUS: What’s that?

Even before Trump’s clash with Zelensky, the presence of Chinese warships on its southern coast had turned Australia’s attention to AUKUS, its multibillion-dollar security deal with the US and the United Kingdom.

Concerns had flared about whether the deal could withstand the whims of Trump’s White House when a British reporter asked the US president if he and his UK counterpart had spoken about AUKUS.

“What does that mean?” Trump replied. The incident was later brushed off by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as an issue of accents. “I think we’re going to have to limit the questions to Americans he can understand,” he said.

Dean, from the University of Sydney, said it’s no bad thing that Trump wasn’t across the acronym because the deal already has the fulsome support of his closest advisers.

That support was cemented by Australia’s first down payment of $500 million to bolster America’s submarine production, with the agreement that some nuclear-powered subs will be sold to Australia to boost its military capability in the Indo-Pacific.

It’s the kind of deal Trump will want to focus on in the future, Dean said.

“He’s looking to make money for the United States, and he’s looking to do better deals. And AUKUS is a bit of an exemplar deal for them,” Dean said.

“For the Europeans, I wouldn’t underestimate Donald Trump looking at this and going, if the Australians can do this, why can’t you?”

‘No tolerance for free riders’

Elsewhere across the Pacific, US allies appeared unsettled by the extraordinary scenes in the Oval Office.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba struck a cautious tone on Monday, insisting he had “no intention of taking sides” when asked about the Trump-Zelensky clash.

Yet, he vowed to do his utmost to “maintain US involvement and promote unity” among the Group of Seven nations – hinting at growing disquiet over the fracturing of the Western alliance.

“Today’s Ukraine could be tomorrow’s East Asia,” he added. “We must also consider steadily increasing our deterrent power to prevent war.”

Japan, which has territorial disputes with China in the East China Sea, has raised concern about increasing Chinese military maneuvers in its nearby waters. Last year, a Chinese aircraft carrier entered Japan’s contiguous waters for the first time.

South Korea, another US ally in East Asia, declined to comment on the meeting between Trump and Zelensky but said it was closely monitoring US suspension of military aid to Ukraine.

Trump has repeatedly called on allies like South Korea to pay more for US troops stationed on their territory. In a speech to Congress on Wednesday, he once again made a veiled threat while referencing what he called unfair tariffs South Korea places on US goods – something Seoul denies.

“We give so much help military and in so many other ways to South Korea. But that’s what happened, this is happening by friend and foe,” Trump said.

In Taiwan, the self-governing democracy China has vowed to one day absorb, Defense Minister Wellington Koo tried to reassure confidence despite what he described as “rapid and bizarre changes” in the international landscape.

“I think the United States won’t retreat from the Indo-Pacific region, because this is its core interests,” he told reporters in a briefing Tuesday, citing shared interests with Washington in economic development, geopolitics and US military security.

But Koo also nodded to Trump’s “America first” stance. “In international politics, we also deeply realize that we can’t just talk about values and not talk about interests. Of course, the United States must value its own national interests,” he added.

Experts say the US has become frustrated at having to shoulder the weight of other countries who fail to contribute to their own defense.

“The Trump administration has made clear its lack of tolerance. It’s had no tolerance for free riders,” said Thompson, from RSIS in Singapore.

“I think the countries that get that message clearest and fastest are the ones that are going to be the good partners of the United States, because it’s not like the US is abandoning allies. What the US is doing is prioritizing its most capable ones,” Thompson said.

Mehdi Yarrahi, an Iranian singer and musician known for his song encouraging women to remove their hijabs, was lashed 74 times as part of his punishment for supporting the protests that swept the country, his lawyer said Wednesday.

The punishment was “fully and completely implemented,” his attorney, Zahra Minoui, said in a post on X. Yarrahi, 42, was arrested in August 2023 and sentenced by the Tehran Revolutionary Court to two years and eight months in prison, as well as 74 floggings. He eventually served one year of his sentence and was fined, alongside the lashing.

Yarrahi had been accused of “releasing an illegal song that is against the morals and customs of Islamic society,” the state news agency IRNA said in 2023.

Flogging is a form of beating that involves a whip or rod and is commonly administered to the person’s back.

He was detained four days after releasing his famous song “Roosarito” – Farsi for “your headscarf” – where lyrics included the lines: “Take off your scarf, the sun is sinking. Take off your scarf, let your hair flow.”

“Don’t be afraid, my love! Laugh, protest against tears,” the lyrics add.

A month after Yarrahi’s arrest, protests erupted throughout Iran to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old woman who died in the custody of Iran’s morality police after being arrested for allegedly not wearing her headscarf properly.

Rights groups have been outraged over the hijab law and the cruel ways it is enforced.

In December, Amnesty International said that Iranian authorities had imposed new draconian laws against veil-wearing, including threats of “imposing the death penalty, flogging, prison terms and other severe penalties to crush ongoing resistance to compulsory veiling.”

Other artists in Iran have received floggings as part of their sentences, including acclaimed movie director Mohammad Rasoulof, who in May of last year was sentenced to eight years in prison and flogging for national security crimes, his lawyer said.

In 2015, two Iranian poets faced 99 lashes each for shaking hands with people of the opposite sex. They were also both sentenced to years in prison for “insulting the sacred” in their writings, a decision slammed by freedom of expression activists.

A Chinese PhD student was found guilty Wednesday in a London court of drugging and raping 10 women in England and China, as police warned there could be more than 50 other victims.

Zhenhao Zou, 28, was convicted of the attacks between 2019 and 2023 following a monthlong trial at the Inner London Crown Court. He was convicted of 11 counts of rape, with two of the offenses relating to one victim.

After more than 19 hours of deliberations, jurors concluded Zou raped three of the women in London and seven in China.

Police have only been able to identify two of the victims and said after the verdict that more than 50 other women may have fallen victim to Zou, which would make him one of the worst sex offenders in U.K. history.

Using hidden or handheld cameras to record the attacks, Zou filmed nine of the attacks as “souvenirs” and often kept a trophy box of women’s belongings.

Zou, a mechanical engineering student who was doing his PhD at University College London, claimed that the sexual interactions were consensual. He will be sentenced on June 19.

Jurors, who had to watch footage of the attacks during the trial, were given regular breaks.

Judge Rosina Cottage described the defendant as a “dangerous and predatory sexual offender” and that his sentence will be “very long.”

Zou, who showed no emotion as the verdicts were read out in court, was also convicted of three counts of voyeurism, 10 of possession of an extreme pornographic image, one of false imprisonment and three of possession of a controlled drug with intent to commit a sexual offense, namely butanediol.

He was cleared of two further counts of possession of an extreme pornographic image and one of possession of MDMA with intent to commit a sexual offense.

Zou, who also used the name Pakho online, befriended fellow students of Chinese heritage on WeChat and dating apps, before inviting them for drinks and drugging them at his apartments in London or an unknown location in China.

“He has done all that he can in these offenses to incapacitate his victims to the point where they could not resist his attack, and in many instances may not even remember what has occurred to them,” said Metropolitan Police Commander Kevin Southworth.

He thanked the two women who testified against the “particularly cowardly and deceitful” Zou and said there is evidence that he “may have potentially attacked as many as 50 other women in the same awful nature.”

The Met is appealing to anyone who thinks they may have been targeted by Zou to contact the force.

During the trial, a call to police from one of the women led to questions over the quality of the interpreter made available.

“It’s a matter of severe regret that the victims didn’t necessarily get that best translation at the time,” Southworth added.

Zou moved to Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 2017 to study mechanical engineering at Queen’s University before heading to UCL in 2019 for a master’s degree and then a PhD.

“Our thoughts are with the survivors and we wish to pay tribute to the bravery of the women who reported these crimes and gave evidence at the trial,” said UCL’s president, Dr. Michael Spence.