‘A stain on the West’: The story of how the ‘greatest military force ever assembled’ abandoned Afghanistan

Published

4 years ago

August 21, 2021

admin

The Taliban’s triumphant march into Kabul seven days ago was the result of long-term planning and rank opportunism.

For weeks, Western leaders had insisted it just wouldn’t happen; in one heated briefing with journalists, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, even attacked the media for being unpatriotic and claimed that NATO forces had scored a strategic victory.

But for 72 hours over an August weekend, and with many senior officials away on their summer holidays, the world watched wide-eyed as the Taliban made their way into the central squares of city after city and finally through the gates of Kabul itself.

So how did this happen? How did 20 years of hard fighting, close mentoring, and vast financial investment unravel in only 11 days?

How did the “greatest military force ever assembled”, as George W Bush called it, not manage to defeat a group of mere “country boys”, as Gen Carter described them?

For this article, Sky News has spoken to a series of serving and retired military commanders, intelligence officials, and politicians. Between them they have decades of experience in Afghanistan. They tell a story of abandonment that has “left a stain on the West”, political short-sightedness that “demonstrates an ignorance of history and culture” and a future that is “uncertain, unpredictable, and will almost certainly come back to bite”.

***

On 29 February 2020, weeks before the world was crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic, America signed a peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.

From The White House briefing room in Washington DC, president Donald Trump described American forces as “the greatest fighters in the world”, but said “it’s time, after all these years, to bring our people home”.

Around the same time in Kabul, his defense secretary Mark Esper admitted “the road ahead won’t be easy”, while Afghanistan’s then-president Ashraf Ghani, standing next to the American but not a part of the talks, said his government was “ready to negotiate with the Taliban”.

From NATO to the UN, Berlin to London, the deal was welcomed with caution. Although many failed to share the American optimism, most knew the day had been long coming and accepted it.

“We went in together and we will leave together,” the alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at the time.

Britain’s defence secretary, initially a cautious supporter of the deal, has since described it as “rotten”, but too late. At the time Britain and other allies kept on message, afraid of angering Washington. On reflection, perhaps they should have spoken out sooner.

After the deaths of 2,400 US troops, 457 British troops and more than 60,000 Afghans, this was the beginning of the end – just not how anyone expected it.

It isn’t possible to point to a precise moment when everything started to unravel. Instead a series of events culminated over a relatively short period that, in the words of a military commander with knowledge of the situation, “sapped the confidence of the Afghan forces and passed the initiative to the enemy”.

The departure of civilian contractors, many of them ex-military, removed the network of logistical and engineering support so vital to any war effort.

But it was perhaps the loss of allied air support that crippled the fighting power of the Afghan forces and left them so exposed on the battlefield.

“For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed,” one former RAF pilot told us.

“We trained them to fight like that.

“You suddenly remove this safety blanket and they’re on their own; they knew that, and even worse, so did the Taliban.

“The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.”

Although the US continued limited airstrikes against Taliban positions, they weren’t enough to halt the advance, and besides, the Pentagon had made clear that support would come to an end by September.

“(US President Joe) Biden and others can say what they like about the failings of the Afghan Security Forces in recent weeks, but they merely expose their lack of understanding of warfare – it is not about numbers, or even training or equipment. It is about morale, will and confidence,” is the blunt assessment of one former head of British forces in Helmand Province.

“The US and NATO’s abandonment left them floundering, devoid of belief and fighting spirit. By contrast it buoyed the Taliban, giving them an unwarranted sense of legitimacy. The result, while swifter than most informed people expected, was pretty much inevitable.”

Through July, as the Taliban advance grew momentum, Afghan forces withdrew from some of the rural areas to concentrate on major routes, border crossings and key cities. It was a deliberate strategy to protect the bits that mattered, but the strategy of an army already on the run.

In late July, I met the Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib on a visit to London. He tried to put a brave spin on events: “Losing districts means we can focus on other areas. It’s not as bad as the Taliban would have you believe – they are winning the media war but not the military one.”

But Mr Mohib, who has since fled Afghanistan, knew by then that things weren’t looking good.

“The Americans probably didn’t realise how dependent the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] were on our NATO partners. The withdrawal has had a devastating impact. The Taliban are like zombies: kill or be killed.”

Despite this downbeat assessment, Mr Mohib was still devising his national security strategy for the coming six months; if he had any inkling of what was coming, he never let on.

Through my many trips to Afghanistan perhaps one message was more consistent than any other, no more so than when I stood in the hills outside Kabul and watched new officer recruits tackling an assault course.

This “Sandhurst in the Sand” academy was supposed to be Britain’s legacy to Afghanistan, and I was repeatedly told how it was a “generational commitment” to train, mentor and nurture the commanding officers who would ensure stability and peace long after NATO left.

“We need to be here for years, possibly decades,” a British soldier told me at the time. “When an entire generation has passed through these gates and the head of the Afghan Armed Forces has been trained by us, here at this academy, then it will be ok to leave.”

That was only three years ago. The commitment will never be fulfilled.

On my last visit to Kabul, the city felt different to previous trips. Afghans oversaw security, manned checkpoints, and guarded major buildings. NATO forces sped across the capital in armoured vehicles but stayed largely behind the scenes. It was very clear there had been a deliberate shift in responsibilities.

The Taliban still launched attacks from rural strongholds, and although the attrition rate among Afghan soldiers was high – too high – they were just about holding the peace. As far as NATO commanders were concerned, it was a workable situation.

“The more we stepped back, the more they stood up, but international assistance in the background was vital,” one former commander of Task Force Helmand reflected.

“They have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.”

The US withdrawal cut this short.

President Biden inherited the Trump peace plan but didn’t change it. In fact he expediated it by a few months, eager to make good on a campaign promise to bring America’s longest war to an end.

In recent days Mr Biden has sought to justify his decision by arguing that remaining in the country for another “ten, fifteen years” would have made little difference. Maybe he’s right, we’ll never know, but few outside of government share that view.

For one recently retired British general, with long operational experience in the Middle East, the politicians are to blame for what the country is going through now.

“As an Afghan, who do you trust more: the countryman who says he will kill you, or the foreigner who says he will protect you? When we lead, or fight alongside ‘native troops’, they will perform wonders, but their own commanders and political masters routinely betray them by corruption or refusal to accept responsibility.

“The US withdrawal and the inevitable collapse of the Afghan security forces means that every other aspect of our 20-year engagement (political, institutional, educational, social, health etc) has also collapsed.

“What was an ‘economy of force’ operation (very little blood, and relatively small amounts of treasure, given our overall investment in Afghanistan, rightly or wrongly) was needlessly and avoidably halted, with all the predictable consequences, so Joe Biden could meet a totally artificial deadline.”

He is not alone in pointing the finger at Washington.

“Yes, exit was Trump’s policy,” tweeted the former British ambassador Tom Fletcher. “Yes, he would have communicated and executed it in an even clumsier, more crass way. But we expect empathy, strategy and wisdom from Biden. His messaging targeted Trump’s base, not the rest of world and not allies past or future.”

Others are angry at their own party.

One British Conservative MP texted to say: “I don’t really see the point of being in the Tory party anymore”, while another simply messaged three words: “Tragic. Unnecessary. Shameful.”

A few days before the collapse of Kabul, Britain’s Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, himself a former soldier, broke diplomatic cover to reveal that he had tried to persuade some fellow NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan once the US had left. He failed, and by then it was too late.

The appetite to operate without American backup just wasn’t there – this chaotic episode has exposed NATO’s weaknesses and shone a harsh light on years of defence cuts that have left the British Armed Forces either unable or unwilling to go it alone.

President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised. As a nation Afghans have paid a far, far higher toll than any other, but as the inevitable became clear, they deserted their posts and in some cases the country altogether.

On Saturday 14 August, the day before Kabul fell, 24 Afghan helicopters carrying almost 600 servicemen flew in secret to Uzbekistan.

Hundreds more crossed the Amu Darya river on Afghanistan’s northern border, but were detained by Uzbek border troops.

Others made for the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul in the Hindu Kush. The lush, mountainous region is still dotted with rusting tanks, destroyed during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, relics of a long history of resistance. If an uprising against the Taliban is going to come from anywhere, it will be the Panjshir, the one corner of Afghanistan the Taliban doesn’t control.

By Sunday lunchtime it was all but over. By now the Taliban was inside the capital, and en route to the Presidential Palace.

Knowing the game was up, soldiers changed out of their combat fatigues and melted into the crowds, fearful of Taliban retribution.

Western capitals watched aghast. The few official statements that did come out were largely out of touch and outpaced by the fast-moving events on the ground.

Remarkably some still called for a “political solution”, but there was nothing left to negotiate. The Taliban had won.

NATO might have abandoned Afghanistan first, but the country’s president and senior leadership followed swiftly afterwards.

Ashraf Ghani fled with his family and close aides. Reports said he was denied entry to Turkmenistan; he eventually surfaced in the United Arab Emirates, vowing to return and fight but Mr Ghani, not hugely popular when in power, is even less so after deserting his country.

Echoing the thoughts of so many who deployed in service of their country, one officer, still serving at the top of the chain, wrote to say: “The abandonment of our Afghan partners is a stain on the West. It leaves those who sweated, fought, suffered (and continue to suffer) and grieved feeling horrified and betrayed.”

One intelligence source defended accusations they didn’t see it coming, saying: “We did.

“Ok, maybe the speed of the Taliban advance took us a bit by surprise, but a swift Taliban overthrow was one of the scenarios we put to politicians. The problem is, they either didn’t want to hear it, or didn’t know what to do with it.”

MI6 and the CIA could do nothing but stand back and watch as the Taliban ripped through.

“I felt like crying,” another British intelligence officer confided. “We’ve spent decades trying to understand the country, building networks and relationships to ultimately keep Britain safe. Within days it was all undone. We go back to the drawing board. Many of the assets, who risked their lives to help us, are now in grave danger.”

In 20 years of conflict and reconstruction, however, Afghanistan has been undeniably transformed.

Education attendance is up, especially among girls; women have been able to work and represent their country in government, sport and music; roads have been tarmacked, improving transport links; and access to medical services, especially maternity care is vastly better. When widows and injured veterans reasonably ask: “Was it all worth it?”, these are the improvements they can be rightly proud of.

But for all that, the enduring images that publishers will put on the front covers, when the historians write the final accounts of yet another failed intervention in this graveyard of empires, will be two moments in the dying days of this mission. One is the heartbreaking sight of babies being passed over barbed wire to helpless soldiers by mothers so desperate, that they can see no other way.

The other is a photograph of Afghan men, clinging to the side of a giant US C17 transport aircraft as it gathers pace down the runway of Kabul airport leaving Afghanistan behind, in the hands of the Taliban.

For 20 years, as the fighting raged and death toll increased, the Taliban waited, believing NATO would eventually run out of patience. It turns out, they were right.

World

Giving up territory would be ‘unacceptable’, says Ukraine’s armed forces chief

Published

5 hours ago

December 5, 2025

admin

Giving up territory would be 'unacceptable', says Ukraine's armed forces chief

It would be “unacceptable” for Ukraine to “simply give up territory” in any peace deal with Russia, the head of the Ukrainian armed forces has told Sky News.

General Oleksandr Syrskyi said a “just peace” can only be achieved if fighting is halted along current frontlines and then for negotiations to take place.

Signalling a complete lack of trust in claims by the Kremlin that it wants to end its war, he accused Vladimir Putin of using an attempt by Donald Trump to broker peace talks as “cover” while Russian troops try to capture more land by force on the battlefield.

Ukraine peace talks – latest

The rare intervention offers the clearest indication yet of the Ukrainian military’s red lines as Washington tries to negotiate a settlement that – according to an initial draft – would require Kyiv to surrender the whole of the Donbas region in the east of the country to Moscow.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, backed by the UK and other European allies, has been trying on the diplomatic front to strengthen Ukraine’s position.

But President Putin has said Russia would either seize the Donbas militarily or Ukrainian troops would have to withdraw.

Europe’s fate at stake

Speaking frankly, General Syrskyi, commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Ukraine, signalled that his country’s soldiers would fight on if diplomacy fails – and he warned that the fate of the whole of Europe is at stake.

In an exclusive interview in the basement of a building in eastern Ukraine – the location of which we are not disclosing for security reasons – he said Ukraine’s main mission “is to defend our land, our country, and our population”.

“Naturally, for us it is unacceptable to simply give up territory. What does it even mean – to hand over our land? This is precisely why we are fighting; so we do not give up our territory.”

Many troops have died fighting for Ukraine since Russia first seized the peninsula of Crimea and attacked the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, which comprise the Donbas, in 2014.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians were then mobilised to fight alongside professional soldiers following Putin’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Russia well short of original goal

Nearly four years on, Russia occupies almost a fifth of Ukraine, including large parts of the Donbas, but well short of an original goal of imposing a pro-Kremlin government in Kyiv.

Asked whether the sacrifice of those people who gave their lives defending their country would be in vain if Ukraine is forced to hand over the land it still controls in the Donbas to Moscow, General Syrskyi, speaking in Ukrainian through a translator, said: “You know, I do not even allow myself to consider such a scenario.

“All wars eventually end, and of course we hope ours will end as well. And when it does, a just peace must be established.

“In my understanding, a just peace is peace without preconditions, without giving up territory. It means stopping along the current line of contact.”

The commander then broke into English to say that this means: “Stop. A ceasefire. And after that negotiations, without any conditions.”

Switching back into Ukrainian, he said: “Any other format would be an unjust peace, and for us it is unacceptable.”

Ukraine’s contingency plans

While Ukraine’s will and ability to fight are key in confronting Russia’s much larger army, so too is the supply of weapons, ammunition and other assistance from Kyiv’s allies, most significantly the US.

But, with the White House under Donald Trump, becoming less predictable, the Ukrainian military appears to be considering contingency plans in case US aid stops.

Asked whether Ukraine would be able to continue fighting if President Trump did halt support, General Syrskyi said: “We are very grateful to our American partners and all our allies who have been supporting us throughout this war with weapons and equipment.

“We hope they will continue providing full support. But we also hope that our European partners and allies, if necessary, will be ready to provide everything required for our just war against the aggressor.

“Because right now we are defending not only ourselves, but all of Europe. And it is crucial for all Europeans that we continue doing so, because if we are not here, others will be forced to fight in Europe.”

General’s assessment of fighting on ground

A decorated commander, with the call sign “snow leopard”, General Syrskyi has been conducting combat operations against Russia’s invasion for more than a decade.

He was made military chief in February 2024 after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sacked the previous top commander. General Valerii Zaluzhnyi is now Kyiv’s ambassador to London.

General Syrskyi offered his assessment of the fight on the ground, saying:

• Ukrainian troops still control the northern part of the fortress city of Pokrovsk in the Donbas and will keep battling to retake the rest of it, contrary to Russian claims to have captured what has been a key target for Moscow for the past 16 months.

• Russia is firing between 4,000 to 5,000 one-way attack drones at Ukrainian positions along the frontline every day as well as 1,500 to 2,000 drones that drop bombs. But Ukraine is firing the same volume – and even more – back. “In terms of drones, there is roughly parity. At the moment, we are deploying slightly more FPV [first person view] drones than the Russians.”

• Russia’s armed forces still have double the volume of artillery rounds of Ukraine’s, but the range and lethality of drone warfare mean it is harder to use artillery effectively. Now, 60% of strikes are carried out by drones.

• More than 710,000 Russian soldiers are deployed along a frontline that stretches some 780 miles (1,255km), with the Russian side losing around 1,000 to 1,100 soldiers a day, killed or wounded “and a majority are killed”.

The Russian army is currently “attempting to advance along virtually the entire frontline,” General Syrskyi said.

Where are the harshest battles?

The fiercest battles are around Pokrovsk, as well as the northeastern city of Kupiansk, in Kharkiv region, the Lyman area, also in the Donbas, and near a small city called Huliaipole, in the Zaporizhzhia region of southeastern Ukraine.

“The Ukrainian army is conducting a strategic defensive operation, aiming to contain the enemy’s advance, prevent them from breaking deeper, inflict maximum losses, and carry out counter-offensive actions in those sectors where we see the enemy is vulnerable,” the commander said.

“Our strategy is to exhaust the Russian army as much as possible, prevent its advance, hold our territory, while simultaneously striking the enemy in the near rear, the operational depth, and… into Russia itself, with the aim of undermining its defence capability and industrial capacity.”

He is referring to a capability Ukraine has developed to launch long-range drones, laden with explosives, deep into Russia to strike military targets as well as oil refineries.

The operation is aimed at destroying fuel for the tanks, warships and jets that are attacking Ukraine and – crucially – reducing oil revenues that help to fund Russia’s war machine.

Sea drones crash into Russia’s warships

The Ukrainian military is also deploying explosive sea drones that are smashed into Russian warships as well as tankers used to transport sanctioned Russian oil.

Asked if his forces were ready – and had sufficient manpower – to keep fighting if necessary, General Syrskyi said: “We have the resources to continue conducting military operations.”

Yet Ukraine is suffering from a shortage of troops on the frontline.

Soldiers and wider society are also exhausted and facing another winter of war.

No sign of Moscow winding down war effort

President Putin has an advantage when it comes to troop numbers and firepower over time, which makes continued support to Kyiv from its allies more vital than ever.

General Syrskyi cautioned that Moscow showed no sign of winding down its war effort despite the Russian leader telling President Trump he is prepared to negotiate.

“So we do everything so that if the enemy continues the war, and you can see that although we want peace, a fair peace, the enemy continues its offensive, using these peace talks as cover,” he said.

“There are no pauses, no delays in their operations. They keep pushing their troops forward to seize as much of our territory as possible under the cover of negotiations.”

He added: “So we are just forced to wage this war… protecting our people, our cities and towns, and our land.”

The commander said this is what motivates his soldiers.

“If we do not do this, we can see clearly what the Russian army leaves behind, only ruins, only deaths.”

As for whether the UK and other European nations should be preparing their people for the possibility of a wider war with Russia, the general said: “Of course, the armed forces of every country ensure reliable protection of their citizens, their children, and their territory.

“With the existence of aggressive states, above all the Russian Federation and its allies, this issue is extremely urgent.

“Everything must be done to ensure the capability to maintain a level of defence, and armed forces modern enough to repel aggression, both individually and in support of the allies.”

World

Major city may have to evacuate as water supplies run low

Published

11 hours ago

December 5, 2025

admin

Major city may have to evacuate as water supplies run low

Iran’s capital is counting down to “day zero” – the day the water runs out and the taps run dry.

Reservoirs that supply Tehran’s 15 million residents are almost empty.

The Karaj dam, which supplies a quarter of the city’s drinking water, is just 8% full.

Water rationing has begun in some areas, with the flow from taps reduced or even stopped altogether overnight.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has urged people to use water sparingly – or the city, or at least parts of it, may even have to evacuate.

So what’s going on?

Rain should start falling in the autumn after Iran’s hot dry summer.

But according to the country’s National Weather Forecasting Centre, this has been the driest September to November period in half a century, with rainfall 89% below the long-term average.

The combination of low rainfall and high heat has lasted for more than five years, leaving the country parched.

But the weather – and the shadow of climate change – aren’t the only factors in Tehran’s water crisis.

According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the population of the city has almost doubled from 4.9 million in 1979 to 9.7 million today.

But water consumption has risen even faster, quadrupling from 346 million cubic metres in 1976 to 1.2 billion cubic metres now. Increasing wealth has allowed more people to buy washing machines and dishwashers.

To supplement supplies from reservoirs, Tehran has had to turn to natural aquifers underground, which provide between 30% and 60% of its tap water in recent years.

But that puts the city in direct competition with farmers who draw on the water to irrigate crops.

Levels are falling by 101 million cubic metres a year around Tehran, according to analysis in the journal Science Advances. That’s water that has accumulated from many decades of rain – and will take at least as long to replenish.

Professor Kaveh Madani, the former deputy head of Iran’s environment department and now director of the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, said chronic mismanagement of natural resources has led to what he calls water bankruptcy.

He told Sky News: “These things were not created overnight.

“They’re the product of decades of bad management, lack of foresight, overreliance and false confidence in how much infrastructure and engineering projects can do in a country that is relatively water short.”

Government ministers blame the water shortage on climate change, water leaks from pipes and the 12-day war with Israel.

Whatever the reason, it underlines the threat of water scarcity to global cities. Tehran is not alone.

Cape Town in South Africa narrowly avoided taps running dry eight years ago after a city-wide effort to save water.

Even London, known for its rain, is at risk. Supplies haven’t kept up with population growth and booming demand.

As Tehran has found, droughts that are being made more likely and more severe with climate change can expose the fragility of water supply.

World

Everything you need to know about World Cup 2026

Published

11 hours ago

December 5, 2025

admin

Everything you need to know about World Cup 2026

England and other qualified teams are finally set to find out who they’ll be facing in the group stages of the 2026 FIFA men’s World Cup today.

It’s guaranteed to be the biggest World Cup ever, with 48 teams competing instead of the usual 32.

Here’s everything you need to know.

When is the World Cup draw?

The draw, which determines which teams face which in the group stages, will take place on in Washington DC from 12pm local time, or 5pm UK time tonight.

US President Donald Trump will join FIFA’s Gianni Infantino at the John F Kennedy Center – a performing arts venue where Mr Trump is chairman – to decide the fixtures.

Due to the increased number of countries taking part in the tournament, the format of the group stages has changed slightly. Instead of 32 teams being divided into eight groups, this year will see 12 groups of four.

The top two teams in each group, plus the eight best third-placed teams, will advance to a round of 32.

For the draw, Spain, Argentina, France and England – the four highest ranked teams – will be placed in the same pot for the draw, and are guaranteed not to meet each other until the semi-finals.

The three host nations are also guaranteed not to meet early, having been put in Pot 1 with the top teams.

The draw seedings are as follows:

Pot 1: Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, United States, Mexico, Canada.

Pot 2: Croatia, Morocco, Colombia, Uruguay, Switzerland, Japan, Senegal, Iran, South Korea, Ecuador, Austria, Australia.

Pot 3: Norway, Panama, Egypt, Algeria, Scotland, Paraguay, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa.

Pot 4: Jordan, Cape Verde, Ghana, Curacao, Haiti, New Zealand, European playoff winner 1, European playoff winner 2, European playoff winner 3, European playoff winner 4, Intercontinental playoff winner 1, Intercontinental playoff winner 2.

You’ll be able to watch the ceremony via FIFA’s website or YouTube channel, while the BBC and BBC iPlayer will also be showing the draw.

Sky Sports will be offering live coverage of the draw, including analysis and reaction as the groups and fixtures are revealed.

FIFA says the draw is scheduled to take about 45 minutes during a show lasting about an hour and a half.

On 6 December at 5pm UK time, FIFA will put out another broadcast in which it will reveal all match venues and kick-off times.

Could Trump be getting a prize?

In November, FIFA revealed it had created a new worldwide peace prize, and that it would hand it out for the first time during the draw ceremony.

It said it would be given to “individuals who have taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace” – with no indication that potential recipients were limited to the world of sports.

It has prompted speculation the award will go to Donald Trump, who has long campaigned for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr Infantino, who has built up a strong relationship with the US president, backed him for the Nobel prize, writing on Instagram in October that Mr Trump “definitely deserves” the award for his efforts toward a peace deal in Gaza.

The award ultimately went to Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.

When asked later if Mr Trump would get FIFA’s award, Mr Infantino laughed and said: “On the 5th of December, you will see.”

When and where is the World Cup?

The tournament runs from 11 June to 19 July 2026 and will be played at 11 sites in America, three in Mexico and two in Canada.

A total of 48 countries will be involved – up from 32 in 2022 – and 104 games will be played overall – up from 64.

The host nations automatically qualify and will play all three of their group stage matches on home soil.

The final will take place at the New York New Jersey (MetLife) Stadium – home of the New York Giants and New York Jets.

All stadiums where games will be played include:

America:
• Atlanta Stadium
• Boston Stadium
• Dallas Stadium
• Houston Stadium
• Kansas City Stadium
• Los Angeles Stadium
• Miami Stadium
• New York New Jersey Stadium
• Philadelphia Stadium
• San Francisco Bay Area Stadium
• Seattle Stadium

Mexico:
• Estadio Azteca Mexico City
• Estadio Guadalajara
• Estadio Monterrey

Canada:
• Toronto Stadium
• BC Place Vancouver Stadium

Trump threatening to change host cities

Despite the stadiums already being selected, Donald Trump has threatened to remove Democrat-run city of Los Angeles from hosting, along with the Boston area.

Boston itself is not a host area, but the home of the NFL’s New England Patriots is being used by FIFA for seven matches, 30 miles away in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

“If we think there’s going to be a sign of any trouble, I would ask Gianni [Infantino] to move that to a different city,” Mr Trump said in November, as protests against his government have taken place in both cities.

FIFA has told Sky News the US government does have the right to determine if cities are safe for the World Cup.

In a statement, FIFA said: “Safety and security are the top priorities at all FIFA events worldwide.

“Safety and security are obviously the governments’ responsibility, and they decide what is in the best interest for public safety.

“We hope every one of our 16 host cities will be ready to successfully host and fulfil all necessary requirements.”

Scott LeTellier, who was managing director of the 1994 World Cup in America, suggested the cities in question shouldn’t worry about Mr Trump’s threats, as changing the stadiums would require “some kind of national emergency that would give the government the authority to cancel an event”.

“I don’t see even a remote chance of that happening,” he said.

What teams could still qualify?

Out of an available 48 spots, 42 teams have already qualified.

The line-up automatically includes the three host nations, America, Mexico and Canada. While 16 of the spots are reserved for European teams – made up of the 12 UEFA qualifying group winners and the other four coming via play-offs.

Remaining qualifying spots are divided between the other confederations:
• CONMEBOL (South America) gets a minimum of six
• CONCACAF (North/Central America and Caribbean) gets a minimum of six
• AFC (Asia) gets eight
• CAF (Africa) gets nine
• OFC (Oceania) is guaranteed one spot.

For the first time since 1998, Scotland have bagged themselves a place through qualifying while Jordan, Curacao, Cape Verde and Uzbekistan will all make their World Cup debuts.

The final slots at the tournament will be decided through play-offs.

On one side, a new inter-confederation tournament will see two teams from CONCACAF and one team each from CONMEBOL, AFC, CAF and OFC to battle it out for two spots in the World Cup.

The six teams that have qualified for these play-offs are: Bolivia, Congo DR, Iraq, Jamaica, New Caledonia and Suriname.

European, or UEFA, play-offs work slightly differently, with 16 teams battling it out for four available spaces.

This tournament is made up of the 12 runners-up from the European Qualifiers groups and the four best-ranked group winners of the 2024/25 UEFA Nations League that did not finish their group stage in first or second place.

On 20 November, a draw to determine who is set to play who in the eight semi-final matches on 26 March 2026 was made by FIFA. The winners will advance to the four final-stage matches on 31 March.

Should Wales and Northern Ireland both win their first-round games, they will then face each other, putting two home nations up against one another.

Will there be a half-time show?

Following in the footsteps of the NFL’s Superbowl, FIFA has confirmed that a half-time show will be performed during the World Cup final on 19 July.

Despite other finals having had musical acts before, this will be the first half-time show.

Earlier this year, FIFA’s Mr Infantino said British band Coldplay is behind the decision-making on multiple artists who will perform – none have been confirmed so far.

Meet the mascots – and the ball

As there are three host nations, this year’s World Cup also comes with three mascots.

Maple the moose, Zayu the jaguar and Clutch the bald eagle will represent host countries Canada, Mexico and America respectively.

Also reflecting the three co-hosts is the official World Cup match ball – Trionda – which means three waves in Spanish.

The ball features a swirled pattern incorporating red, green and blue, with each section representing a host nation.

How much are tickets?

FIFA says the cheapest tickets are from $60 (£45) in the group stage. But the most expensive tickets for the final are $6,730 (£5,094).

Initially, FIFA suggested tickets would be sold using dynamic pricing, meaning fans would pay different prices according to demand.

Variable pricing – fluctuating based on demand – had never been used at a World Cup before, raising concerns about affordability.

FIFA has now backed away from it, saying allocations would be set at a fixed price for the duration of the next ticket sales phase.

How you can get tickets

Tickets for the World Cup have been released in three phases, each with slightly different rules on who can buy the tickets and how.

Phase one was a Visa Presale Draw for people with a valid, unexpired Visa debit card, credit card, or reloadable prepaid card enabled with 3D Secure. This phase has now closed.