10-year-old Palestinian boy in critical condition after Israeli soldier shoots him in Tulkarem

Saddam Hussein Iyad Mohammad Rajab, 10, was shot by an Israeli soldier in front of his home in Tulkarem on January 28 and is now in critical condition. (Photo: Rajab family)
Defense for Children International – Palestine | January 31, 2025
Ramallah — A 10-year-old Palestinian child is in critical condition after an Israeli soldier shot him in the northern occupied West Bank on Tuesday.
Saddam Hussein Iyad Mohammad Rajab, 10, was shot in the abdomen by an Israeli soldier around 6:10 p.m. on January 28 during an Israeli military incursion into Tulkarem in the northern occupied West Bank, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International – Palestine. Israeli forces attacked Saddam’s father as he attempted to carry him to receive medical aid, and after paramedics placed him in an ambulance, soldiers detained his father for about an hour. After three hours of surgery at Thabet Thabet Governmental Hospital, doctors referred Saddam to Rafidia Hospital in Nablus, and during the transfer Israeli forces detained the ambulance transporting Saddam. While Israeli soldiers held up the ambulance, one soldier told Saddam’s father, “I am the one who shot your son. God willing, he will die.” Saddam remains in the intensive care unit at Rafidia Hospital.
“Israeli forces have utter contempt for Palestinian children’s lives as they deliberately target children with live ammunition with no accountability,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, accountability program director at DCIP. “This deliberate obstruction of medical aid reflects the Israeli military’s routine disregard for the protections afforded to medical personnel and infrastructure under international law, often intentionally targeting these entities and rendering essential health resources for Palestinian children ineffective.”
Saddam sustained a gunshot wound to his waist that exited from his chest, according to information collected by DCIP. The bullet tore through his intestines and injured the pancreas and other vital organs in the abdomen.
The attack was captured on camera and has gone viral on social media.
Saddam and his family had been trapped at home for two days as the Israeli military carried out an incursion into the city of Tulkarem. Saddam’s father said he was going to go downstairs for a minute and took a mobile phone with him.
“After about a minute, I heard the sound of only one bullet with my son Saddam’s scream,” Saddam’s father, Iyad, told DCIP. “He called out in a loud voice that still echoes in my ears, as he said “Dad!” and his voice disappeared.”
“I carried him in my arms, wanting to take him to the nearest vehicle or hospital or something to save his life,” Iyad continued. “When I carried him in my arms, I found that more than 20 Israeli soldiers surrounded me within moments, as some of them assaulted me with severe beatings, punches, and blows using their hands, feet, and rifle butts. I was carrying my son in my arms, and I was telling them to hit me and do whatever you want, but let me take my son for treatment.”
Saddam’s medical care was obstructed by Israeli forces several times, including immediately after the shooting and during the transfer from Thabet Thabet Governmental Hospital in Tulkarem to Rafidia Hospital in Nablus.
Under international law, children are entitled to special protections, which necessitate that they receive the care and aid that they need during times of armed conflict. Palestinian children like Saddam are systematically denied that right, as Israeli forces simultaneously continue to indiscriminately and fatally target children throughout occupied Palestinian territory. These ongoing assaults on children’s lives are perpetuated by Israel’s entrenched culture of impunity, which continues to claim the lives of Palestinian children nearly every day.
Malaysia announces conference to support Palestine reconstruction efforts
MEMO | February 1, 2025
The Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Friday that it will be holding a conference to support reconstruction efforts in Palestine.
The Malaysian Foreign Ministry explained that it is coordinating with Japan to hold the fourth session of the Conference on Cooperation among East Asian Countries for Palestinian Development (CEAPAD) in Malaysia this year. It noted that the initiative reflects Malaysia’s proactive role in securing international support and strengthening cooperation to ensure the sustainability and impact of reconstruction efforts in Palestine.
The ministry noted that the conference is in line with the recent statement made by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim regarding the urgent need to accelerate reconstruction efforts in Palestine.
It also indicated that it is: “Fully committed to working side by side with Japan within the framework of the Conference on Cooperation among East Asian Countries for Palestinian Development to respond to the Palestinians’ clear call for assistance.”
The Malaysian Foreign Ministry pointed out that within the framework of these efforts, it aims to contribute to the reconstruction of basic infrastructure, including a school, a hospital and a mosque, as a sign of the collective commitment of the government, the private sector and the people of Malaysia.
It said that it will seek, along with Japan, to engage CEAPAD participants in securing the necessary commitments for the success of the group’s efforts to redevelop Gaza. This includes a series of coordination meetings before the conference to guarantee that aid and contributions to Palestine are provided more efficiently and sustainably for long-term development.
The Malaysian Foreign Ministry stressed its steadfast support for the Palestinian cause and its continued work closely with its regional and international partners to assure that the fourth CEAPAD conference is translated into concrete actions.
Trump’s call for Palestinians’ relocation will threaten regional peace, Arab nations warn
Press TV – February 1, 2025
Major Arab nations have expressed their opposition to US President Donald Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza and the occupied West Bank to neighboring Egypt and Jordan under any circumstances.
In a joint statement following a meeting in Cairo, the foreign ministers and officials from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League presented a unified stance against the US president.
They warned that such a move would threaten regional stability, risk spreading the conflict, and undermine prospects for peace and coexistence among its peoples.
“We affirm our rejection of [any attempts] to compromise Palestinians’ unalienable rights, whether through settlement activities, or evictions or annex of land or through vacating the land from its owners… in any form or under any circumstances or justifications,” the statement read.
The top diplomats emphasized that they were looking forward to working with Trump’s administration to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region, it noted.
Trump said last week that he had spoken with the king of Jordan about potentially building housing and moving more than 1 million Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries.
The US president added that he would like both Jordan and Egypt — which borders the battered enclave — to house the Palestinians displaced by 15 months of the Israeli regime’s genocidal war.
However, critics said that Trump’s suggestion would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Wednesday opposed the idea that his country would facilitate the displacement of Gazans and said Egyptians would take to the streets to express their disapproval.
Trump on Thursday insisted that Egypt and Jordan would accept displaced Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, despite the two nations having dismissed his plan to relocate Gazans there.
Jordan is already home to several million Palestinians, while tens of thousands live in Egypt. The foreign ministries of Egypt and Jordan have both rejected Trump’s suggestion in recent days.
‘Israel’ lost the Gaza war and must accept the reality: Report
Al Mayadeen | February 1, 2025
The threats by Israeli officials to destroy resistance movements in the Gaza Strip have diminished following the ceasefire agreement and the exchange of prisoners. This has shifted to discussions about “Israel’s” failure to achieve the war’s objectives, amid growing media criticism of “Israel’s” inability to secure victory despite claims of “absolute victory.”
Meanwhile, the Hamas movement has reasserted itself as a dominant force in shaping the future of the Gaza Strip, with its influence expanding towards the West Bank.
The Israeli failure is reflected in opinion polls, where responses to a question about the return of Gaza residents to the northern part of the Strip revealed that only 4% of respondents believe the war’s objectives were fully achieved. In contrast, 57% feel the objectives were not fully met, and 32% believe the objectives were not achieved at all.
‘Israel’ completely failed in its war on Gaza
The threats by Israeli officials to destroy the Resistance movements in the Gaza Strip have subsided following the ceasefire deal and the exchange of prisoners, shifting the focus to discussions about the Israeli occupation’s failure to achieve the war’s objectives.
In this context, Itamar Ben-Gvir, head of the Jewish Power Party and resigned Police Minister, encapsulated the prevailing sentiment in Israeli discourse by stating, “The horrific images from Gaza—referring to the release of Israeli captives by Palestinian Resistance movements—show that what happened in the Gaza Strip is not a complete victory, but a complete failure,” further describing the deal as an act of unparalleled recklessness.
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth quoted a senior officer in the Israeli military’s General Staff as saying that “Israel, during the 15 months of the war on Gaza, has not achieved the war’s goals, which were to eliminate Hamas both militarily and administratively.”
The Israeli occupation’s failure to achieve its objectives in the war against the Gaza Strip, which started on October 7, 2023, has sparked attention from various experts and commentators in “Israel”. Among them, lawyer and penal law expert Doron Nir-Tzavi, who in an interview with Israeli Channel 7, emphasized that the true victor in any war is the side that “successfully achieves its goals.”
Since “Israel” set four goals for itself—destroying Hamas as a military force, dismantling Hamas’ authority in the Gaza Strip, ensuring the Israeli occupation is not exposed to “threats from Gaza”, and securing the return of all kidnapped individuals—it has failed to achieve any of these objectives. As a result, it is the party that did not win, according to the reports.
‘No achievements’
Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo spoke to Israeli Channel 12, stating that while the Israeli army may have won the individual battles, “Israel” ultimately lost the war. He further emphasized that the proposal to create a buffer zone on the Gaza Strip border, 300 to 800 meters deep, to protect Israeli settlements, reflects “Israel’s” failure in the war. Pardo remarked, “This is not how you end a war, and this is not how you win a war.”
Former Mossad official Rami Igra highlighted in an interview with Israeli channel i24news that it is clear to everyone in “Israel” that the Israeli army failed to eliminate Hamas’ authority. He pointed out that no one in “Israel” planned for the aftermath or sought to establish an alternative authority to replace Hamas.
As mentioned in the interview, the clear outcome is that the lack of an alternative to Hamas’ authority means it continues to control the Gaza Strip, which is the reality on the ground. Igra further noted that “Israel” has, perhaps unwillingly, abandoned its goal of eliminating Hamas. The situation indicates that Hamas will remain in Gaza and is likely to grow stronger in the West Bank, which will force “Israel” to pay a significant price in the future.
‘Fruitless victory’
In an interview with Channel 12, former advisor to the Israeli Security Ministry, reserve Lieutenant Colonel Alon Avitar, stated, “Hamas is like a player who enters the field and says, if I don’t play, no one will play. That is, Hamas says that it will remain in power, whether directly or from behind the scenes, but in any case, it is the one dictating matters in the Gaza Strip. As for Israel, it must swallow the big frog in the story of absolute victory.”
In an article published in Haaretz, writer and linguist Rubik Rosenthal argued that everyone in “Israel knows they lost the Iron Swords war. Netanyahu knows it, the Smotrich-Ben Gvir duo knows it, Halevi knows it, and the whole world knows that Israel lost, failing to achieve any of the goals of the war.”
The article noted that despite “Israel destroying the enemy’s country, killing tens of thousands of its soldiers and citizens, eliminating its leaders, and blocking kilometers of its tunnels,” Rosenthal emphasized that there is no image of victory for “Israel” in this war, and therefore, no “fruits of victory.”
Hamas rebuilds itself militarily and authoritatively
In his analysis, Haaretz military affairs analyst Amos Harel stated that “there is no basis for the boasts of absolute victory by Netanyahu’s supporters” and emphasized that “one would have to be a foolish follower, who has lost all his control mechanisms, to believe that Israel defeated Hamas.”
Harel also pointed out that despite the massive military blow Hamas received, it did not surrender. Instead, it is gradually regaining its civil authority in the Gaza Strip and beginning to restore its military infrastructure. That said, this reality contradicts Netanyahu’s statements about the “goals of the war and the promises he made during it”.
Avi Issacharoff, an analyst on Arab affairs at the Walla website, criticized the Israeli government during an interview with Channel 12 for selling the public empty slogans about “absolute victory.” He argued that the government failed to achieve its primary goal of eliminating Hamas’ rule, which remains intact.
Zvi Yehezkeli, an Arab affairs commentator for the Israeli i24news channel, stated that Hamas is the dominant force in the Gaza Strip. He emphasized that it is evident to everyone that Hamas is the primary authority in Gaza, and it is the group with which “Israel” coordinates.
Yehezkeli further stated that the images Hamas intentionally broadcasts during the release of Israeli captives are not aimed at the people of Gaza, but rather at the international community. He noted that Hamas uses these images to demonstrate “how Israel was unable to achieve what it wanted in the Gaza Strip.”
Ex-US Colonel: Mounting US Merc Deaths Signal Impending Collapse of Ukraine’s War Machine
Sputnik – 01.02.2025
Having lost tens of thousands of its best and most experienced troops in foolhardy attacks, Ukraine has become increasingly reliant on mercenaries to make up for this shortage in troops, Ret. Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen tells Sputnik.
Thus, an increase in casualties among these mercenaries is a “natural occurrence” that serves as “an indication of a slow and actually increasing collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”
Unlike its senile predecessor and his cohorts, the Trump administration seems to be gaining a “sense of realism” regarding the way the Ukrainian conflict is going, veteran international consultant Ret. Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen tells Sputnik.
Western media narrative has now shifted from celebrating virtually everything Kiev does to a sobering assessment of the growing casualty and desertion rates in the Ukrainian military.
This may be an attempt to shape the public opinion as the US could be mulling either abandoning the Ukraine completely or passing the burden of supporting Kiev to someone else.
“Maybe try to shut it down or perhaps just pass the Ukraine project over to Europe and say, you take care of it, it’s your problem. So I think the US is trying to to extricate themselves out of the situation potentially.”
Kiev and Western backers trying to undermine Moscow’s ties with neighbors – FSB

Nikolay Kochmarik posing with a Ukrainian armored vehicle. FSB
RT | February 1, 2025
Ukrainian intelligence services and their Western handlers are creating fake online content in an attempt to spoil Russia’s relations with neighboring countries, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has alleged.
The agency announced in a statement on Saturday that it had identified a Ukrainian national who had offended the people of Uzbekistan while posing as a Russian blogger. The controversial clip had been uploaded to a YouTube channel “controlled by the Lithuanian special services,” it added.
A video featuring a man who claims to be a Russian citizen made headlines last month for comparing Uzbeks to dogs, sparking outrage among commentators in both Central Asia and Russia.
At the time, Rasul Kusherbaev, an advisor to the Uzbek ecology minister, urged the country’s foreign ministry to “take action” in response to the insults. “Our cooperation with Russia is based on the principles of equality and mutual respect. Discrimination is unacceptable in interstate relations,” Kusherbaev told the media outlet Daryo.
According to the FSB, the offensive blogger is a citizen and current resident of Ukraine named Nikolay Kochmarik, who has been actively supporting Kiev’s military during the conflict with Moscow.
“This incident is evidence of deliberate actions by the Ukrainian and Lithuanian special services as well as by their foreign handlers to create provocative content aimed at undermining relations between Russia and its partners in the CIS,” the FSB stressed. With such clips, Kiev and its Western backers are “attempting to form anti-Russian sentiment abroad,” it added.
The CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) is an intergovernmental organization comprised of many former Soviet Republics, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
How Ukrainians became cannon fodder in British military’s Krynky debacle
By Kit Klarenberg | Press TV | February 1, 2025
In November 2024, Ukrainska Pravda published a little-noticed investigation, documenting in frequently disquieting detail the catastrophic failure of Ukraine’s long-running effort to capture the village of Krynky in Russian-controlled Kherson, October 2023 – June 2024.
That it was to all intents and purposes a British operation, from deranged inception to miserable conclusion, was perhaps the most shocking revelation.
As the proxy war teeters on collapse, it’s high time London’s covert role in fomenting relentless escalation, and getting enormous numbers of Ukrainians pointlessly killed, is critically scrutinized.
In June 2023, the Kakhovka Dam’s destruction almost completely submerged large swaths of Kherson, a key proxy war frontline, depopulating these areas in the process. In the wake of this incident, responsibility for which remains a point of significant contention, Kiev decided to secure a beachhead on Russian territory on Dnipro’s Russian-held left bank.
As Ukrainska Pravda notes, the initiative was and remains “one of the least publicized operations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” despite lasting as long as the Battle of Bakhmut.
This omertà endures today, with many “experienced officers” involved in and aware of the operation unwilling to answer any questions put to them by Ukrainska Pravda.
One pseudonymous marine quoted “was so concerned about the privacy” of his conversations with the outlet that he contacted them “from different numbers almost every time.”
The rationale for this conspiracy of silence is obvious. The Krynky operation’s failure was so egregious that it easily ranks among the uppermost tier of the biggest and worst modern military calamities.
Moreover, though, the effort had a supremely grand ultimate purpose, in which the surviving Ukrainian marines involved in the operation believed so strongly that several of them spoke of Kiev’s failed Krynky incursion in the same terms as the June 1944 Normandy landings – D-Day.
Ukrainska Pravda reveals it was hoped securing the Krynky beachhead would be a “game-changer”, opening a second front in the conflict, allowing invading marines to march upon Crimea and all-out victory in the proxy war.
This fantastical objective has hitherto never been publicly divulged. A December 2023 BBC article nonetheless hinted at intended greatness. It discussed the horrendous experiences of Ukrainian soldiers who “spent several weeks on the Russian-occupied side” of the Dnipro, as Kiev sought to establish its Krynky “bridgehead”.
Along the way, the British state broadcaster noted parenthetically, “President Volodymyr Zelensky has been keen to talk up this offensive, framing it as the beginning of something more [emphasis added].”
‘Constant Fire’
Per Ukrainska Pravda, Krynky’s foundations were laid in February 2023, when it was announced London, “perhaps Ukraine’s most active and determined ally”, would begin a training program for Ukrainian marines and pilots. Behind closed doors, Britain – “a naval power” – concurrently began lobbying Kiev to “start using marines for waterborne operations.”
However, the proposal “did not resonate… for a long time” with Zelensky, or then-Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi. So the British took the “radical step” of dispatching an “official delegation” to Kiev, to convince the pair.
“The British team persuaded Zaluzhnyi, and he said: that’s it, we’re creating the Marine Corps,” a source informed the outlet. London then instituted five-week-long training programs.
Ukrainians were taught on British territory “how to overcome water obstacles: to cross a river, land on the shore and conduct operations on land.” Survivors of the operation told Ukrainska Pravda, “They realized they were being prepared for something big and different from their previous tasks during their stay in the UK.”
Come August, almost 1,000 Ukrainian marines had reportedly been tutored “in small-boat landing operations and amphibious assaults”, in training environments identical to where they would land in and around Krynky.
The stage was thus set for seizing the beachhead, which commenced two months later. “Almost immediately” though, “the operation’s biggest flaw – its planning – began to work against the Marines,” producing “huge losses”.
Ukrainska Pravda acknowledges the mission “wasn’t fully thought through in every aspect,” which is quite the understatement.
Ukrainian marines reaching Krynky required them to travel across the Dnipro via boat or be dropped off at numerous small islands nearby and swim to land. Resupply was also supposed to be conducted via boat deliveries.
In the aforementioned December 2023 BBC article, a marine participating in the catastrophe revealed it was expected by the operation’s British planners that once the Ukrainians landed, their adversary “would flee and then we could calmly transport everything we needed.”
Alas, “it didn’t turn out that way”:
“The entire river crossing is under constant fire. I’ve seen boats with my comrades on board just disappear into the water after being hit, lost forever to the Dnipro River… When we arrived on the [eastern] bank… they knew exactly where to find us. They threw everything at us – artillery, mortars and flamethrower systems. I thought I’d never get out.”
To make matters worse, “a lot of young guys” with zero combat experience were being fed into Krynky. “It’s a total nightmare… some of our marines can’t even swim,” the embattled marine bitterly relayed to Britain’s state broadcaster.
Fearing “things will only get worse,” he added “no one” dispatched to the “hell” there knew “the goals” of the operation in which they were engaged. “Many” believed their commanders had “simply abandoned” them, and “our presence [has] more political than military significance.”
‘Almost Impossible’
Ukrainska Pravda gravely notes, “not all [marines] made it” to Krynky, and “not all who did return.” Even those who survived the perilous journey “frequently sustained injuries or were killed” upon arrival, “because the Russians immediately targeted them with artillery.”
During landings, “every second mattered”, to the extent the Ukrainians quickly “abandoned the use of life jackets” for their river crossings, as detaching one onshore took half a minute, “and there [could] be casualties during that time.”
Fatal operational blindspots and blunders didn’t end there. Resupply boats were likewise relentlessly targeted by Russian forces, making it virtually impossible to equip marines with even the most basic essentials, including ammunition, bandages, food, medicine, and water.
The Ukrainians resorted to using hexacopter drones “to deliver all sorts of things” to the frontline, “even blood for transfusions.”
Meanwhile, one marine bitterly informed Ukrainska Pravda, “heaps” of artillery and rocket support “that would work in our favor” promised by their superiors never materialized.
“HIMARS will fire like machine guns!” they were told, “but we were deceived in the end.”
Regardless, marines were still expected to carry out extraordinarily grand missions once – if – they reached Krynky. For example, three marine brigades were tasked with capturing a 30-kilometer-long beachhead around the village, on foot and without heavy equipment, “using units already exhausted from fighting in Donbas,” within just four days.
This also necessitated thrusting up to seven kilometers inland, into Russian territory.
“The order seemed insane to everyone at the time,” a participating marine told Ukrainska Pravda, “we warned that it would be a massacre, but we were told to keep pushing.”
Their dire predictions were proven completely correct, the mission abruptly failing after “a considerable number of highly valued personnel” were blown to bits by Russian airstrikes, missiles, and tank fire. Yet, this senseless turkey shoot paled in comparison to the disaster and insanity of Britain’s plot for Kiev to march on Crimea.
A survivor of the Krynky operation said this “ultimate goal” was “almost impossible.” To accomplish it, Ukrainian marines “needed to cover a vast distance” – 80 kilometers – into territory that had been under heavy Russian occupation for 18 months.
Furthermore, it was “impossible to establish a foothold” in many of the areas where marines landed, which were “nothing but swamp”. Unable to dig shelters or trenches in the terrain, they were forced to hide from Russian bombardment in craters left by previous attacks.
Some marines intentionally “got lost” on islands near Krynky to avoid the river crossing. Others tried to reach the area and return floating “on car tyres”.
At least two “heroes” involved in the operation “refused to act” on certain orders from their commanders, “as doing so would have been suicidal.”
Some wounded soldiers literally took their own lives, “because there was no evacuation.” These were just a few of the “tragic stories” to result from Britain’s futile, covert proxy push on Crimea.
‘Remain Silent’
The onset of winter was “when the situation on the [Dnipro’s] left bank started to really deteriorate.”
The Russians transferred significant assault forces to the area, used glide bombs “to destroy a large part” of Krynky, and “figured out how best to target Ukrainian forces’ river routes, especially at the turns, where the boats had to slow down, and landing points.” Moscow’s artillery onslaught left the area “cratered like the moon.” A reconnaissance officer told Ukrainska Pravda:
“Each time our battalion entered [Krynky], the situation got worse and worse. People got there, only to die. We had no idea what was going on. Everyone I knew who was deployed to Krynky is [sic] dead.”
The situation further “took a dark turn” in early spring 2024. Not a single boat could enter or leave the area. “By May, the situation was a disaster” – but it was not until July the last of Ukraine’s marines withdrew from the area, being forced to swim back.
“Most people” Ukrainska Pravda interviewed about Krynky “are convinced the operation dragged on for at least several months longer than it should have.” One despaired:
“We had to withdraw in spring at the latest, during the foggy season. We could have got all of our soldiers out at that point. It would’ve saved people’s lives. But instead, we waited until nothing could be done any longer. Until the very last moment.”
During the operation’s entire nine months, Krynky never came under full control of Kiev’s British-trained and directed marines. They managed to capture, recapture, and hold “about half of the village” at most, per Ukrainska Pravda.
“As of late 2024, all of Dnipro’s left bank in Kherson Oblast is under Russian control,” the outlet concludes. No wonder that today, neither Ukrainian nor Western officials are “particularly vocal about Krynky, preferring to remain silent on the issue.”
Zaluzhnyi “has never issued a public statement about the operation.” In May 2024, he was appointed ambassador to Britain. Lieutenant General Yurii Sodol, Ukraine’s former Marine Corps commander who oversaw Krynky, was dismissed from the armed forces in November 2024, ostensibly after failing a military medical exam.
Total killed and wounded figures for the operation remain concealed, although Ukrainska Pravda learned just one brigade lost around 700 personnel during the nine-month-long debacle.
Had it been wave after wave of poorly prepared, ill-equipped and militarily unsupported British marines dispatched in large numbers to certain death in Krynky, one might expect their commanders and anyone responsible for planning the operation to face severe censure.
As it was Ukrainians doing the fighting and dying in an unwinnable, literal quagmire, British officials are likely to remain immune from repercussions.
In a bitter irony, Zelensky may well be joining them in London in due course.
Why is the top US spy alliance afraid of Trump?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 01.02.2025
America’s Five Eyes partners – Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand – fear that US President Donald Trump’s deep state crackdown and spy apparatus overhaul could destabilize their intelligence network, reports The Wall Street Journal.
What’s driving their concerns?
Free Riders
- Trump may see Five Eyes as a bloated racket exploiting US resources, per the WSJ. The US spends nearly $100 billion on intelligence – 10 times more than the other four combined.
Russia Collusion Hoax
- Five Eyes were entangled in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, largely pushed by US intelligence.
- The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe, later debunked, was triggered by an Australian tip in 2016.
- Britain’s GCHQ may have wiretapped Trump during his 2016 campaign, as the White House suggested in 2017.
- Trump hasn’t directly targeted Five Eyes lately, but their unease suggests they have plenty to hide.
What Triggered the Panic?
- The “world’s most powerful spy alliance” sounded the alarm as Trump’s intelligence picks, Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, near confirmation in Congress.
- Gabbard, nominated for director of National Intelligence, vowed to fight weaponized intelligence, citing Iraq War lies and the Russia collusion hoax.
- Patel, set to lead the FBI, pledged to curb overseas operations and increase transparency.
NATO nation clears Russian-crewed ship in sabotage probe
RT | February 1, 2025
Norwegian police have released a Russian-crewed vessel after finding no evidence linking it to recent damage to an undersea fiber optic cable connecting Latvia and Sweden.
The Norwegian-owned Silver Dania, which operates between St. Petersburg and the northern Russian port of Murmansk, was detained on Thursday night following a request from Latvian authorities and a ruling from a local court.
Norwegian police said that the ship, which was escorted to the northern port of Tromso, could have damaged a critical fiber optic link belonging to Latvia’s state broadcaster and connecting the Baltic nation and Sweden’s Gotland island. It added that the law enforcement is “conducting an operation on the ship to search, conduct interviews, and secure evidence.”
However, less than a day later, the police stated that Silver Dania “will be able to leave Tromso already on Friday evening.” They added that while the investigation will continue, “no findings have been made linking the ship to the act,” and the crew had been cooperative.
The cable sabotage case is the latest in a string of incidents involving damage to critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, with speculation rife that Russia could have played a role. Short of any proof, however, Western officials have refrained from leveling direct accusations.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed allegations of Moscow’s involvement. “It is quite absurd to continue to blame Russia for everything without any reason.”
The Washington Post, citing Western intelligence sources, reported earlier this month that the damage to Baltic Sea infrastructure likely stemmed from maritime accidents involving poorly maintained ships and inexperienced crews rather than deliberate sabotage.
NATO has launched a mission dubbed “Baltic Sentry” to enhance surveillance and protection of critical undersea infrastructure in the area and address concerns about possible sabotage.
Did the US Declare the End of the Unipolar World Order?
By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 31, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview with Megyn Kelly on 30 January 2025 which could signal the beginning of the end of America’s hegemonic security strategy. Rubio recognised that unipolarity, having one centre of power in the world, was a temporary phenomenon that has now passed:
“it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.
Rubio suggested that the hegemonic position of the US resulted in a weakening of the Westphalian system based on sovereign states, and replaced it with a globalist system where the US claimed the role of a world policeman:
“And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem”.
Rubio is referring to the end of the unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War, and the need for the US to adjust to multipolar realities.
What is multipolarity?
If unipolarity is over, what is the multipolar system that is returning? The modern world order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 has been based on the principle of multipolarity and a balance of power to constrain expansionist and hegemonic ambitions of states. A multipolar distribution of power dictates what produces security and the purpose of diplomacy.
Security when there are many centres of power entails managing the security competition between states. Conflicts derive from security competition as the efforts by one state to enhance its own security by for example expanding its military power, will reduce the security of other states. “Indivisible security” is therefore the key principle in a multipolar system, which suggests that security cannot be divided – either it is security for all or there will be security for none. Any effort by a state to become dominant will therefore trigger great power conflicts as it compels other powers to collectively balance the aspiring hegemon.
Diplomacy in a multipolar system aims to enhance mutual understanding about competing security interests and reach a compromise that elevates the security of all states. It is imperative to put oneself in the opponent’s shoes and recognise that if the opponent’s security concerns are resolved, then that also enhances one’s own security.
Unipolarity
Unipolarity was celebrated after the Cold War as it was premised on some good intentions. The idea was that great powers would not engage in rivalry and security competition if the benign hegemon of the US could not be contested. US security strategy was based on global primacy, and it was expected that there was no possibility and need to compete with the benign hegemony of the US. Furthermore, US global primacy would also ensure that liberal democratic values would be elevated. Yet, unipolarity would depend on keeping down rising powers that would therefore have an interest to collectively balance the US. Liberal democratic values would be corrupted as they would be used to legitimise the sovereign inequality required to interfere in every corner of the world. Even Charles Krauthammer who coined and celebrated the term “unipolar moment”, recognised it was a temporary phenomenon that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Security under the unipolar system did not entail managing the security competition. On the contrary, security was dependent on dominating to such an extent that no rivals could even aspire to challenge the US. In 2002, the US Security Strategy explicitly outlined that global dominance would “dissuade future military competition” and that the US therefore had to perpetuate “the unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence”. The hegemonic strategy is why the West abandoned all agreements for an inclusive pan-European security architecture with Russia, and instead returned to bloc politics by expanding NATO toward Russian borders. It would threaten Russian security, but there would be no security competition as Russia would be too weak. The sentiment was that Russia would have to adjust to new realities or be confronted by NATO that had encircled it.
Diplomacy under unipolarity also came to an end. Diplomacy no longer meant to recognise mutual security concerns to find solutions for indivisible security. Rather, diplomacy was replaced with the language of ultimatums and threats as other states would have to accept unilateral concessions. In the past, Western politicians and media would discuss the security concerns of adversaries to mitigate security competition. After the Cold War, Western politicians and media largely stopped discussing the security concerns of adversaries, as there was no desire to “legitimise” the notion that Western hegemony as a “force for good” could be considered a threat. When the West placed its military forces on the borders of other countries, it was claimed to bring democracy, stability and peace. Furthermore, conflicts could not be resolved by diplomacy if they challenged the dominance of the West. For example, taking into account Russian security concerns about NATO’s incursion into Ukraine would represent a rejection of the hegemonic system. While NATO rejected diplomacy for three years as hundreds of thousands of men died on the front line, Rubio now suggests that diplomacy and negotiations must start as “We just have to be realistic about the fact that Ukraine has lost”.
A reason for optimism
In the late 1920s, Antonio Gramsci wrote about the troubling times as a period of interregnum. Gramsci wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”.
The great power conflicts in the world today are largely a result of the world being in a transition between unipolarity and multipolarity. The West attempts to defeat its rivals to restore the unipolarity of the 1990s, while the vast majority of the world seeks to complete the transition to multipolarity. As the US worries about unsustainable debt, the collective balancing by adversaries and the rising possibility of nuclear war – it appears that there is a growing willingness to retire the temporary project of unipolarity.
Desertion Epidemic? Ukrainian Soldiers Flee as Army Collapses on the Battlefield
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 31.01.2025
As Ukraine’s army suffers mounting defeats, thousands of soldiers are abandoning their units, unable or unwilling to continue the fight.
- The 157th Brigade, formed in 2024, ceased to exist by 2025 with one-third of its soldiers deserting before becoming operational.
- The elite 155th ‘Anna of Kiev’ Brigade saw at least 1,700 of its 2,300 soldiers desert before reaching the front lines.
- Over 10% of the 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers sent to Poland for training fled the country.
- Desertion is occurring in both large and small groups, with 22 soldiers from the 71st Separate Jaeger Brigade deserting in just one week in December 2024.
- Some deserters are even charging to assist others escape, with one man arrested for smuggling soldiers out for €7,000 each.
The Scale of Desertion is Staggering:
- For every 100 mobilized soldiers, only 10 reach the front, according to General Serhiy Kryvonos.
- Ukrainian activist Gennadiy Druzenko estimates 150,000 deserters, with 114,000 criminal cases opened.
- Ukrainian officials have admitted the crisis, with Deputy Anna Skorokhod estimating over 100,000 desertions by October 2024. Commissioner Olga Reshetylova stated bluntly: “The problem is big. People are exhausted.”
Would you eat bread made with worms? Brussels thinks so

By Liz Heflin | Remix News | January 28, 2025
According to Regulation (EU) 2025/89, EU citizens will now be able to enjoy bread made from worms. The inspiration for this new rule is that we humans need an alternative to meat.
“A European will eat four oxen, four rams, 46 pigs, 46 turkeys, 12 geese, 37 ducks, and as many as 945 chickens in their entire life. Over 73 percent of families prepare meat dishes at least several times a week. Around 350 million tons of meat are consumed worldwide each year,” explained Poland’s Salon24, noting that the consumption of meat in Poland is even higher than in other member states.
Last year, the European Commission removed the emphasis on promoting laboratory meat within the framework of the Community’s climate policy due to objections from farmers. Agriculture, namely, livestock, has been targeted for generating over 10 percent of annual gas emissions, and the EU aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by 90 percent by 2040.
So now, Brussels wants people to get their protein by eating insects The EU list of new foods for humans, reports Salon24, currently includes three types of insects: the mealworm (in the form of dried larvae), the migratory locust (frozen, dried and powdered) and the house cricket (frozen, dried and powdered).
The larvae of the shiny mealworm have also been allowed to be traded on the EU market in frozen, paste, dried, and powdered form.
The European Commission announcement implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/89 on Jan. 20 authorizes “the placing on the market of UV-treated powder of whole yellow mealworm larvae (Teebrio) as a novel food and amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470.”
It explains that “on March 28, 2023, the Authority adopted its scientific opinion on the ‘Safety of UV-treated powder of whole yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larvae) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283’’ in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.”
The communication continues: “In its scientific opinion, the Authority concluded that the UV-treated powder of whole Tenebrio molitor larvae is safe under the proposed conditions and use levels. Therefore, this scientific opinion provides sufficient grounds to establish that the UV-treated powder of whole Tenebrio molitor larvae, for use in bread and rolls, cakes, pasta products, processed potato products, cheese and cheese products, and fruit and vegetable compotes, intended for the general population, meets the conditions for placing it on the market in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.”
It concludes by stating that “this Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.”
The law means bread and rolls will contain 4 grams of mealworms per 100g of bread, and cakes – 3.5g of larvae per 100g of cake. And apparently, this is creating a whole new business of larvae breeders.
On a Polish government website, there is even a study published for over 5 million zlotys, provided by the EU, to develop “a strategy for the use of alternative protein sources in animal nutrition enabling the development of its production in the territory of the Republic of Poland.”
Luckily, it appears that the regulation mandates that all products containing UV-treated powder of whole Tenebrio molitor larvae (yellow mealworm) be listed as an ingredient. Also, there will have to be an additional “statement that this ingredient may cause allergic reactions to consumers with known
allergies to crustaceans, and products thereof, and to dust mites.”
